Evolution and the 'Wisdom of Crowds' 804
An anonymous reader writes "An essay by a developer of recommendation systems makes a case for why so many people have trouble grasping Darwin's theory of evolution. Downplaying its conflict with religion, the essay suggests that evolution is in a specific class of "equilibrium seeking" concepts that tend to be extremely counterintuitive to most people. The hypothesis is supported by the observation that so many people reject the notion that evolution-like systems such as Wikipedia, prediction markets, and recommendation systems can actually be effective. Particularly fascinating is the description of his surprisingly simple algorithm for competing in the Netflix prize contest."
Re:typo (Score:5, Informative)
Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Current stats:
85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002)
7% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2004) (see Evangelical category for more information)
38% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2004)
37% are self-described Christians but are neither evangelical nor born again
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)
11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)
s/Christian/Muslim/g
Nuff said... No further comment...
Re:typo (Score:5, Informative)
I brought this subject up several times in a conversation with europeans. Those who don't follow slashdot and similar sites hadn't heard about the concept of "intelligent design" at all, and needed it explained. And all of them went "WTF?" at the explanation.
The vast majority of the population hasn't even heard of ID. All the religious arguments I participated in (and there were quite a few) always revolved around the existence/inexistence of a deity, evolution wasn't brought up even once.
Re:Bad analogy? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:typo (Score:3, Informative)
Well things are changing in other developped countries as well. I've watched a report concerning Biology classes in Belgium few weeks ago. Some teatchers complain that it is more and more difficult to teach evolution in classes where there is a significant fraction of immigrants from poor socio-economic backgrounds. Qur'an is considered by those folks as the Alpha&Omega. Somes even believe that modern science discoveries can be easily traced back to this holly book.
The problem is that it is not simply arguing. Somes students become violent.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that all muslims think that way.
Re:typo (Score:3, Informative)
Re:typo (Score:5, Informative)
Got any proof? Because I've got some that shows you're wrong. Link [nationalgeographic.com].
Re:Creationism and Evolution Artificially at Odds? (Score:4, Informative)
Generally, the use of creationism references young Earth creationism... where part of the belief is that the Earth is only a couple of thousand years old. This flavor of creationism can't stand alongside evolution.
Nephilium
Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics (Score:1, Informative)
7% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2004) (see Evangelical category for more information)
38% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2004)
37% are self-described Christians but are neither evangelical nor born again
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)
11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)
s/Christian/Muslim/g
Now, knowing that they are 2 separate polls, the author implies the breakdown of that 85% (into 7+38+37). This doesn't work because they are 2 polls.
Now that we know line 1 has nothing to do with the lines following, we must assume that the numbers add up to 100, right? Wrong, 7+38+37+12+11=105%. Okay, so now that we know some people fall into 2 categories.
Also, take note of how the original poster doesn't align atheism with the rest of the religions (to imply that there are more atheists than "other").
- Figures don't lie, but liars figure. - Samuel Clemens (alias Mark Twain)
Of course, the above poster had some Bush-bashing, so he gets modded up. Goddamn Slashdot.
Secularism in UK (Score:1, Informative)
"The comprehensive professional research in 2006 by Tearfund found that two thirds (66% - 32.2 million people) in the UK have no connection with any religion or church". Even those that do have (IMHO) often have little or no belief in the churches ideals and often attend out of social and class trends and peer or family pressure.
Those who do accept their beliefs (my guess is between 1 and 5% ) do so with a zeal that matches any American church, and can be equally unaccepting of any evidence of evolution.
Re:Creationism and Evolution Artificially at Odds? (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose I could generalize it even further...
Young Earth creationism can't stand alongside almost any physical science.
Nephilium
Re:Crowds contain individuals ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:typo (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, we did. But, some of us believe that an omnipotent god could conceive a universe where living creatures do NOT need "a patch" from him to exist. If you see conflict between evolution and life being a miracle, between freedom of choice and prophecy, it might not be the same for an hypothetical entity that exists (also) outside the influence of space and time.
Back to the topic. A minister in the previous government in Italy "forgot" to include Darwin. After getting a good share of egg on her face, had to backpedal publicly. Even if it was a temporary measure, among the indifference of public opinion. Some italian pages about that still on the web.
http://www.uaar.it/news/2005/11/03/moratti-darwin-scandalo-documento-censurato/ [www.uaar.it]
Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society (Score:2, Informative)
Re:typo (Score:2, Informative)
It's too early for this shit - where's the SCO posts when you need them?
Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas (Score:2, Informative)
"Survival of the fittest" is about individuals, and does not apply to worlds. "Fitness" is always a relative measure, comparing one individual with its competitors. And while individuals are in direct competition with one another, worlds are not. A world can not be said to be "fit" or "unfit" because it is not in competition with other worlds.
Re:Creationism and Evolution Artificially at Odds? (Score:3, Informative)
Merriam-Webster says:
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Which, I'd say, is very much head on, especially the religious overtones and the "no proof" part.
And that's why grandparent is right. A debate between one side resting on proof and the other resting on something that explicitly excludes proof as a requirement can not have a common ground.
Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas (Score:4, Informative)
Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas (Score:4, Informative)
Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas (Score:4, Informative)
Re:typo (Score:4, Informative)
So yeah, Europe is doing something to stop pseudoscience from finding its way into schools.
Self Organizing Maps (Score:2, Informative)
What about the "madness of crowds"? (Score:4, Informative)
The book is frequently referenced in discussions of investment strategy, especially so-called "contrarian investing", which often makes money for its followers. The contrarian investing principle can be summarized as being that when the crowd overwhelmingly agrees on something, go the other way.
The book describes market behavior at least as well as Adam Smith's "unseen hand", and may also well describe other aspects of crowd behavior. I had never heard of the "wisdom of crowds" before this posting, but I have heard of the "madness of crowds" for many years.
Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society (Score:3, Informative)