tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1307062082325982350.post3057433625918784227..comments2023-08-20T07:48:49.164-07:00Comments on Infinite Potatoes: The Sum of PartsSnrIncognitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265075168854851243noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1307062082325982350.post-25052967520104358662008-06-25T09:42:00.000-07:002008-06-25T09:42:00.000-07:00Isn't this article basically saying (& I'm general...Isn't this article basically saying (& I'm generalizing here): "We now have more data to add to our science to be more scientific with!"? <BR/><BR/>If I'm reading everything correctly (and maybe I'm not?) we are just learning more and more about the world and finding out it's not what we thought. <BR/><BR/>Like when we found out Pluto <B>wasn't</B> a planet. <BR/><BR/>I guess this could be kind of upsetting when you think about the ramifications of what we could do with all this information (i.e. the "just because we can doesn't mean we should" / Jurrassic Park argument) but it doesn't seem like that's your main argument. <BR/><BR/>Are you trying to say that there <B>should</B> be some mystery in the world?Stooderthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16366987117128066549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1307062082325982350.post-53932361010321474972008-06-24T16:44:00.000-07:002008-06-24T16:44:00.000-07:00You're clinging to your systems because you're thi...You're clinging to your systems because you're thinking about this like a Cartesian. What I got from the article is not that systems as a whole are gone, (because that's just how humans think) it's that the scientific process itself is changing because the way its steps are performed are changing.<BR/><BR/>Whereas before you needed to start with a hypothesis, gather data to prove or disprove it, and develop a theory - they are suggesting here that the data is already available. That's what they mean by "correlation is enough"; and this then <I>lends</I> to our human need for big picture conceptualizing. The data is being forever collected and at a rapid rate, and it's up to us to tie it together with strings to understand something. Data doesn't do anything by itself. Only a human can construe meaning. Models were a way to do that before, but now absolute ideas can be communicated instead of simply represented.<BR/><BR/>And as someone who works in marketing, you're right, it is my dream to have all of these statistics, because most of the models we do use are complete bullshit, and they always prove themselves to be bullshit because we run into theory exceptions all the time. It would be an incredible blessing to have something reliably solid, quantifiable, and measurable. Because <I>only then</I> can we actually really have any perspective at all. Numbers and profits matter because people lose shit tons of money and even jobs when the numbers are wrong enough. Profits matter now because it's a clear indication of something that worked, and as we don't have any clear numbers on which to base our actions, we operate on profit as an indication of success because it is quantifiable.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, I don't think there's anything in the article about the death of curiosity. The use of the absolute data in conjunction with science will only make it so that curiosity reaches its answers more quickly now that the scientific process can legitimately skip steps; not that it will eliminate curiosity altogether. It will also answer questions that will not have been asked or hypothesized, and I believe that is something worth noting. Curiosity is obviously still a part of generating new discoveries - but soon it won't be <I>required</I>.<BR/><BR/>And it's not the death of the model that they're suggesting. Perhaps that's just a poor choice of words on their part. It's that the model that once had flaws or questionable inaccuracies will then be thrust into the furnace and solidified once and for all.<BR/><BR/>I don't see this as losing intricacies, nor the loss of the appreciation for intricacies. I see it as coming into stronger tools to unearth intricacies we never thought to look for.<BR/><BR/>And lastly, I think this is where we differ at the core, Stiles:<BR/><BR/>The world <I>can</I> work in systems and rules. I have no problem letting this idea be maleable. Things <I>can be</I> predictable. At some core, a human will probably need a model to describe it, but that will not be its absolute nature. We thrive on making connections between one experience and another, and require to some extent cognitive schemas to stay sane and function day to day. But that is not the way things <I>are</I>, that is only how we see them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com