/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18732097]

Was he ever debunked? Why is he the only modern day philosopher to be taken serious?

[Anonymous No.18732256]

literally W H O

[Anonymous No.18732511]

>>18732256
A trve Roman

[Anonymous No.18732543]

>>18732097
I didn’t realize Taleb was that popular until I saw that his works have more goodreads reviews than literally every other philosopher /lit/ talks about. Why IS he the only modern philosopher with significant cultural penetration? Is it because he’s very focused on economics? Same as Sowell being loved by normies?

[Anonymous No.18732554]

>>18732097
What philosophical claims does he even make?

[Anonymous No.18732575]

>>18732543
his books are enjoyable to read, a bit like getting stuck in the back of an opinionated cabbie whom you can bait with a few well-targeted "innocuous" questions. as for >>18732097, debunking is probably being used as a meme here. he says some incorrect things in his books, e.g. his understanding of Popper is surface-level, but his core theses have truth. I work next to econ departments he shits on, and I most people I know are the quant-type person who would fall for that one coin-toss trick he mentions, for example.

Overall, >>18732554, I would recommend reading his books, starting from The Black Swan, but note that he is an opinionated nailhead that extrapolates his aesthetic arguments into pretend empirical facts.

[Anonymous No.18732578]

>>18732543
If you are contrarian and correct, then you are the most correct because everyone else is wrong. And he's significant because he is correct and changed lives regardless of what everyone had said.

[Anonymous No.18732591]

>>18732575
>I would recommend reading his books
That doesn't tell me much. He seems like some kind of philosophical skeptic but I don't know what specific claims OP wants to see debunkings of.

[Anonymous No.18732618]

>>18732591
(I think the OP's question is a lazy meme, but I'll try a little harder)

He advocates positive strategies for investing, based on some extremely high risk and some extremely low risk instruments, based on his philosophical arguments. These are strong claims that are contrary to e.g. the efficient market hypothesis, but that itself is a contentious argument with different strengths.

Debunking, to me, means finding specific local statements that fall on *this* side of Popper's line of demarcation, and finding counterexamples.

[Anonymous No.18732649]

>>18732511
Iranian Mohammedan Arab frome the Sand Dunes of Morroco

[Anonymous No.18732729]

>>18732097
Stop reading the mainstream press. Stop reading Twitter. Your life will improve.

[Anonymous No.18733408]

>>18732575
How is his understanding of Popper surface level?

[Anonymous No.18733430]

>>18732097
He's literally a humanist. The dumbest cuck philosophy since Christianity.

[Anonymous No.18733456]

>>18733430
>Went over his Wikipedia article for 2sec

[Anonymous No.18733496]

>>18733456
No you idiot, he said it in Antifragile. He cried in there about the fact that nature is antifragile. That was pathetic.

[Anonymous No.18734003]

>>18732097
>>18732543
>>18732591
He's not a philosopher. He's a statistician.
This thread is just a testament to the fact that no one know what philosophy is. For the vast majority of people philosophy is the miscellaneous bin.
It's not exactly science, politics, religion, or literature. I'm not really sure what it is. I guess it must be ~philosophy~.

[Anonymous No.18734060]

>>18734003
He is a statistician, and an analytic philosopher in the field of applied epistemology.

[Anonymous No.18734311]

>>18733408
in one of his books, he imagines a Popper who would immediately dismiss any idea given loose evidence to the contrary, whereas Popper acknowledges probabilistic ideas in his Logic of Scientic Discovery. E.g., a scientist observing a black swan drunk on lebanese wine is compatible with two possible universes: that there are black swans, or that the scientist's observations are faulty. Popper would advocate comparing the "simplicities" of those two worlds, which involves among other things whether there exists experiments that continue precluding the opposite possibilities. It's been a while since i read popper so feel free to state if you disagree.

[Anonymous No.18734487]

He's irrelevant in actual academic philosophy. Faggot phil hobbyists like him because he's in science and business. He's one of the many "philosophers" for retards.

[Anonymous No.18735191]

>>18732097
What's the name of the fallacy when you judge someone based on his most famous work which is much better than his average take?

If there is none, I'd like to call it Taleb fallacy.

[Anonymous No.18735728]

>>18734003
> Pseud doesn't know what he's talking about but still gets riled up over it.
> Completely ignores the fact that science, politics, religion, and literature have been considered in the domain of philosophy since at least Aristotle's time and onward.

[Anonymous No.18735749]

>>18732097
Greatest Arab thinker in centuries.

[Anonymous No.18735760]

>>18732097
he makes academics and nerds seethe so he's alright by me

[Anonymous No.18736274]

>>18735749
*Phoenician

[Anonymous No.18736347]

>>18734311
>Unironically defending Popper

[Anonymous No.18736584]

>>18736274
he unironically calls himself Greco-Roman not Phoenician.

>>18732097
He has a few great ideas that make the rest of his boring writing worthy of being read.

[Anonymous No.18737806]

>>18732097
Debunked in his own words
>Every great event acts as a filter
-- Nassim Taleb (filtered by his meme flu neurosis)

[Anonymous No.18737812]

I enjoyed one of his articles challenging IQ testing
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

[Anonymous No.18737817]

>>18737812
Did you enjoy the numerous debunkings?

>>18736584
Calls himself Greco-Phoenician

[Anonymous No.18737907]

He literally made me money and pushed forward my career with the whole options things.

I I bought LEAP put option on a 3x leveraged ETF referencing some Honk Kong Index, then corona came and made me some money and tested the shit I got from Antifragile IRL. Really great author.

[Anonymous No.18738046]

>>18732097
> destroys economics bs vendors
> destroys IQ tards
> destroys woke "historians"
> destroys crypto cultists
> destroys arabists
yep im thinking he's based

[Anonymous No.18738120]

>>18733430
cuck plebbitor

[Anonymous No.18738172]

Read this and tell me what you think
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/

[Anonymous No.18738889]

Don't see Dugin in your pic, OP.

[Anonymous No.18739464]

>>18736347
poster, or more likely, lurkers who'd actually read this response and not just be satisfied with "PoPPEr BTfO LMAO" in order to stop having to think about contrary opinions,

Popper wrote several books, and that invective is targeted at a separate one (Open Societies) than that which I'd mentioned (Logic of Scientific Discovery). The latter is a much less partisan book, and the former takes strong ideological stances.

The invective is filled with ad hominems and motivated reasoning.

1. He misuses the terms. Yeah, he does, but the openness he refers to is parallel to the meaning he explains in the book.

2. His reading of Hegel is loose. That I can't say, but I sensed in reading his book. Popper himself was as dismissive and caustic towards Hegel as Veogelin is to Popper here.

3. He's failing to understand Plato. No constructive or specific arguments are made here besides a mistranslation from Germanic to German world.

4. He discards author's intentions. Not so, at least in some of the references he makes. He goes over the life and history of especially the Greeks he quotes, and writes much about how their lives (as well as Marx's) might have influenced the meaning of their writings.

So poster, or more likely lurkers, even if you disagree with what I wrote above, please move away from the easy route of trimming and pruning the vast tree of knowledge grown by now dead philosophers who devoted their lives to understanding us. it's so easy to label a whole person as "refuted" and clear that name from your mind in order to operate more quickly in a simpler world, but that is a path away from erudition. Remember which board we're on.

[Anonymous No.18739474]

>>18736347
He is discussing Popper's politics, which is of no real interest to anybody but Soros. I personally consider it to be his least significant contribution to philosophy (his most being falsification and his work in the philosophy of science).
>he translates Hegel's "Germanic world" as "German world" and draws conclusions from this mistranslation regarding Hegel's German nationalist propaganda
Popper is German (Austrian) though, so I doubt he was working off of a mistranslation and likely just let his English slip. Besides. there was no Germany in Hegel's time, so I doubt Popper thought he was expressing nationalism in the strict sense of that term.

[Anonymous No.18739504]

>>18739474
>Popper's politics, which is of no real interest to anybody but Soros.
which is crazy, because his idea of local (piecemeal) social engineering is undervalued.

>his least significant contribution to philosophy (his most being falsification and his work in the philosophy of science).
agree wholeheartedly -- logic of scientific discovery should be required reading for grad students, as long as they're able to interpret it in a more detailed way than >>18732097's Taleb. Have you read Lakatos' proofs and refutations? It's a wonderful supplement to Logic of Scientific Discovery, and when put together lead to an interesting unanswered (?) (unresearched?) question about epistemology and the line between metaphysics and empirics.