Reply to comment

When I read an extract of the book, the first thing that strikes me is that the book itself is trying to be that black swan with the greatest impact. Who keeps "thinking inside the box", it argues, cannot pick up signals validating or invalidating the truth of it in the real world. What kind of world is that, being described? I can only assume it is the world of the book and its writer that "has not eaten cheese of" (as we say in Dutch) every day methodology, of which validation even more than establishing reliability, is a most vital part that can NOT be overlooked. In science, it can be, and is, even quantified, or at least contextualized extensively before admission for publication is even thinkable. However, the age of internet and self-certification may be changing this.

Had the gist of the story been about what Bergson called 'closed morality' then my preoccupation would have been quite different, for then the discussion would have been positioned where it belongs: in society and culture. Indeed the 'black swan' does play a major role there. It implements subjectivity in cultures and subcultures, groups and individuals, stemming from what is trusted,expected, suspected, predicted, believed and acted out. That is the very social fabric of places like Bryn Mawr or any multicultural depot.

This book seems to be in line with political correctness found in any such mix of cultures as a first, or what in this case has to be a second, line of defense in the fight against those who wish to hold on to their irregularities or "nerdness". In other circumstances ("out of the black swan box" so to speak) patriotism, identity, historicity, anciennity or folk-culture would have been a possible choice of words.

So it seems to me, that we are blaming the victim here. Or at least this is food for democrats, as Feyerabend's "consolations for the specialist" was food for (extreme) Leftists in the 60s. What is the subject matter of politics, to be promoted by the Left and fought against by the Right (multiculturalism), is sucked into the realm of scientific methodology and 'unmasked' as the process of 'thinking inside the box' or 'tunnel vision'.

When we turn this story upside down, it is not the box or the tunnel that is the problem, but the (lack of) validating and reliability testing that is done, or not-done, which is more basic to Left or Right establishments than, say, simply taking the matter to a different level and turning it upside down.