3 ms·
Doesn't this boil down to the classic question of whether a sensible approach to discovery can be serendipitous as well as hypothesis driven? I work in a big p
by randcraw 10y ago
Doesn't this boil down to the classic question of whether a sensible approach to discovery can be serendipitous as well as hypothesis driven?
I work in a big pharma, and long ago I learned that our biologists and chemists had absolutely no patience for inquiry that lacked a basis in the purposeful exploration of mechanism of action (hypothesis). Without a guiding principle, the number of possible (and meaningless) patterns tends to explode combinatorically and there's not enough time in a dozen lifetimes to test all the nutty proposals your computer can generate in a microsecond.
Isn't that what the author is suggesting? If not, and exploration via random walk IS in fact a productive practice that's worthwhile, then what's the rub?
- TeMPOraL 10y agoYes, I think that's exactly the insight that underlies this article, and that's why I think it makes sense. Unguided "exploration" coupled with large datasets leads wasting time on finding nonsense. That doesn't mean flexibility in a tool isn't warranted - it's just that such flexibility should have a goal, and people should be discouraged from aimlessly applying it and then claiming they found something important. (Also "exploration" is kind of a weasel word for student assignment; you can call your half-assed project "exploratory" and spin a good story from it that will give you a grade without any real work on your part.)