4 ms·
Trying to build programs without real-world experience causes problems. And real-world experience isn't part of the mandatory skillset of those who interpret da
by ktRolster 9y ago
Trying to build programs without real-world experience causes problems. And real-world experience isn't part of the mandatory skillset of those who interpret data.
Let me give you a clear, humorous example of something real-world experience will give you that studies will not:
http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.long http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.long
- ouid 9y agoReal world experience is not the thing that gets you to put on a parachute when jumping out of a plane. Parachutes weren't invented by people jumping out of planes with different things strapped to their backs until they found something that worked. They built thing and changed them and then tested those changes by building/testing wind tunnels. My god the amount of effort it must have taken to develop a way of packing a parachute so that it would open reliably must have been enormous. On the other hand anyone with nothing but real world experience jumping out of airplanes with parachutes on would say, from experience, that parachutes are 100% safe. Someone could easily come along and develop a much safer parachute, and get zero adoption from the people with "real world experience" who assume that their experience is unbiased and sufficiently powerful to be representative. The quantitative model is the only force by which humans reason. Anything that you can't model is merely happening to you, and that's what you hold in high esteem?
- ktRolster 9y agoSo what you are saying is that human experience is worthless? Is that really a position you want to commit to? Or are you willing to admit that practical experience has some value?