Interesting People mailing list archives
Collective intelligence re Texas Board of Education
From: Dave Farber <dfarber () me com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 16:16:55 -0400
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 EducationMichael 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 fArchives
------------------------------------------- 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
Current thread:
- Collective intelligence re Texas Board of Education Dave Farber (May 17)