[ I encountered the same insults later with the charlatan Philippe Jorion who considers not wanting to be a turkey "nihilism".I also encountered the same with another intellectual fraud, Robert Merton with his "these are the best models we've got" (they never consider that "nothing" may be better that the best model).PS- I went on a European radio to express my ideas.When asked: what should we do, I replied: just listen to John Gray. It was a great surprise when a few hours later, I opened my mail and saw John Gray's book with a handwritten note from him. Had I written a book about the black swan idea almost nobody would have read it. A man is morally free when, in full possession of his living humanity, he judges the world, and judges other men, with . How about the reverse: you do not become free by acting intransigent; those who are free have the obligation to be intransigent.I leave aside the confusion absence of evidence/evidence of absence--and the misunderstanding of the very notion of "empiricism".It is a fact that in the real world of our daily decision-making 1) (one side is more harmful than the other), so the burden of evidence is one-sided.Even more that in Hayek's days, the ecology of the real world is becoming too complex for Aristotelian logic: very, very little of what we do can be safely formalized, meaning asymmetries matter more than ever.
How can such a major idea remained hidden from our consciousness?
So to me the history of knowledge is indissociable from the history of intellectual frauds and the mental biases that make us believe in "men of science".
It entered the vocabulary in 1924 --but initially referred to the harm caused by the doctor in causing distress to the patient while informing him about his ailment.
Reste la question du sens: non seulement le latin fait disparaitre l'element semantique essentiel, la persuatsion, au profit des valeurs de la preuve et de l'approbation contenues dans le verbe Thierry de la Villehuchet --an acquaintance of mine -- just killed himself in the aftereffects of the Madoff case. No, it is not about the money --it was other people's money. I could not help comparing it to Madoff, pictured walking around Manhattan with a faint smirk --totally insensitive to the harm he caused.
He had dragged his clients into investing with Madoff . This is an aristocratic act coming from an aristocratic character: you take your own life when you believe that you failed somewhere -- and the solution is to inflict the ultimate penalty on yourself.-- indeed iatrogenics sneaked into modern medicine very late (see Canguilhem's commentary).