Collective intelligence re Texas Board of Education

[Dave Farber <dfarber () me com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
> Date: May 17, 2010 4:14:58 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] re  Texas Board of Education

> Dave - I had read the Feynman story a few years ago.  But in reading it again, I found this "gem" that I had totally 
> forgotten.
>
> "This question of trying to figure out whether a book is good or bad by looking at it carefully or by taking the 
> reports of a lot of people who looked at it carelessly is like this famous old problem: Nobody was permitted to see 
> the Emperor of China, and the question was, What is the length of the Emperor of China's nose? To find out, you go 
> all over the country asking people what they think the length of the Emperor of China's nose is, and you average it. 
> And that would be very "accurate" because you averaged so many people. But it's no way to find anything out; when you 
> have a very wide range of people who contribute without looking carefully at it, you don't improve your knowledge of 
> the situation by averaging."
>
> Besides being apt with respect to choosing textbooks, this quote ought to be required commentary on the new 
> pseudo-science fad being peddled by best-selling science writers, etc. called "Collective Intelligence".   Malcolm 
> Gladwell, and many others who are currently "hot" in the literature make the same claim: if you ask a lot of people 
> and take some statistic like the Mean or the Mode or the Median, you will get the *correct answer* to *any problem*.  
> [I should point out that at my home institution, MIT, there are those who are riding this meme, though I *hope* that 
> they are a bit more intellectually honest. If not, shame on them.]
>
> But there is a meta-point.  You don't decide scientific or engineering truth by voting or averaging.  You decide it 
> by testing your hypothesis, using methods well-known.  Not by "peer review" - I cannot see how anyone who has any 
> sense thinks that "peer review" generates truth; when I was a kid, J.B.Rhine's work *proving* ESP was "peer 
> reviewed".  Astrologers peer-review themselves.
>
> Yet the sloppy thinking promoted by the textbook publishers and the education committees probably got us to the point 
> where Collective Intelligence seems like it MUST be true.  Because it's "hot" and it's the "latest thing", I guess.
>
>
> On 05/17/2010 03:45 PM, Dave Farber wrote:
> > The Feynman story is worth reading djf
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Fearghas McKay <fm () st-kilda org>
> > > Date: May 17, 2010 3:05:05 PM EDT
> > > To: dave () farber net, Michael Collins <mcollins () aleae com>
> > > Cc: Fearghas McKay <fm () st-kilda org>
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] re  Texas Board of Education
> >
> > > Michael Collins <mcollins () aleae com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  I'd think a basic requirement for working on a public education policy would be an interest in the public and use 
> > > > of an education.
> > >
> > > I refer my honourable friend to Richard Feynman's writings on being on the State Curriculum Commission for 
> > > California, ie the School Book Board.
> > >
> > > http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm
> > >
> > >  f
> > Archives     



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com