3 ms·

I think part of the problem with this approach is that there are infinitely many hypotheses (due to the infinitely generative nature of language) that are compa

I think part of the problem with this approach is that there are infinitely many hypotheses (due to the infinitely generative nature of language) that are compatible with the behaviour, so to test and refute them all would be impossible. E.g. "only initiate handshakes with your juniors" is compatible with "only initiate handshakes with your juniors who have not been to Mars" etc. This example is silly and may seem trivial, but I think it illustrates the problem of trying to derive a principle or rule simply from observed behaviour.

lordnacho 10y ago
But isn't that the nature of scientific hypotheses? They are tenuous, only valid until you come across some data that tells you "aha, there's another piece to this rule". The classic would be special relativity vs old Newtonian. If you have a limited dataset containing the actual generating data, say heights, seniority, age, hair color, day of the week, gender, etc, can't you end up discovering at least the parts that are exposed in the data?
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
  >> But isn't that the nature of scientific hypotheses? I guess scientists don't guess completely at random though, do they? They use some sort of heuristics, or their instinct (I've no idea what is, no) to decide which hypotheses are worth pursuing. Most statistical models aren't very good at taking background knowledge like that into account. Not to mention most are also sensitive to "noise" (which is to say, useful information that they can't make use of).