Blog — Intentions

Lockdown log

§

4 de June, 2020

More than anything else, the recipe for the protests over Giovanni, a dish we shall call ‘Catharsis’, is the following: a good dose of monkey see, monkey do (or mirror neurons, as an alternative for vegans), 300 grams of economic crisis, several slices of “I’ve been locked up for three months,” a need for belonging as seasoning to taste, and a populism salad as a side dish.

§

20 de December, 2020

That the owl of Minerva only spreads its wings at dusk is a romantic and euphemistic way of saying that the philosopher is good for nothing, except for collecting data, adding a Plato quote, and criticizing past mistakes with indignation, like Captain A Posteriori. What philosophers have written about the coronavirus this past year has been not only the reflection of what it means for them to disobey that maxim, but also the perfect monument to their occupation: writing about everything without understanding absolutely anything. The coronavirus has completely subdued and degraded them, but hopefully it will also teach them a fundamental principle of understanding: that its true reach is measured by predictions, not by narratives or retrospections.

§

30 de December, 2020

Nostalgia is perverse because, by merely romanticizing the past, it has convinced people that getting back with their miserable exes is a good idea, that previous governments were more just, that commuting to work packed like sardines on public transportation was pleasant, and that going out to sit on a bench with ordinary, tedious people was cause for happiness. Let us calm down a little, please.

§

A tweet by Juan Horacio de Freitas that summarizes quite well my reflections during the coronavirus pandemic

“In my lifetime I have never seen such an effective and massive unmasker of idiocy and pettiness as the present pandemic. In case you want to see something good in this misfortune.”

§

13 de June, 2020 — Regarding a Facebook post that was later deleted by its author

1. La semplicità è la suprema sofisticazione. This damsel’s outburst is a simple non sequitur, since from the premise that contagion prediction models are complex, she deduces the conclusion that they are true. Furthermore, by reductio ad absurdum, it is easy to see that the idea of a mathematical model aspiring to the complexity of the very phenomenon or system it attempts to model is ridiculous and undesirable, since we would either end up like Borges’s cartographer, or we would end up like Neil Ferguson and his grotesquely absurd coronavirus death prediction model, which turned out to be not only erroneous and defective but also so complex that it is humanly impossible to understand.

2. Her outburst ends with another non sequitur, an insignificant but equally reprehensible one: that any degree program where mathematical models are not studied is mediocre. No comment needed; I just wanted to point out that foolishness.

3. Despite all this, not knowing stochastic calculus, epidemiology, or advanced probability does not prevent anyone from being suspicious of someone who, in the name of science, constantly makes predictions that do not come true (and not only do they not come true, but they end up being totally removed from reality). Moreover, it takes naivety to overlook the fact that López-Gatell is, at the very least de facto, a politician (or rather, a political puppet ready to be sacrificed) and not a scientist, which makes his credibility entirely questionable.

4. Finally, returning to the true substance of the discussion and to the point I actually want to communicate, I suspect some will be thinking that the model itself anticipates that these are only estimates and that adjustments can always be made. Well, then I will tell you, with Luboš Motl, that even considering that, simulation models of complex phenomena should not influence our expectations whatsoever. These models have nothing to do with science. If the modeled phenomenon is sufficiently complex, the model is useless. If a single parameter is unknown or seriously incorrect (and the very makers of the model in question admit they do not know several, as is natural), the entire model becomes a great unreliable dungheap. Uncertainty, risk mitigation, and decision-making in the face of complex phenomena like this one should not be approached on the basis of grandiose predictions¹. It is too late to talk about solutions [regarding the pandemic]; let us settle for the fact that what is truly stupid is knowing how to calculate derivatives² but using them to determine whether Virgo is compatible with Aquarius. We are too old for the golden hammer, are we not?³