4 ms·

I agree. Information Theory is _the_ ur-science. It's the science of matching mathematical models to data, and so it's where inference meets the deduction. Such

I agree. Information Theory is _the_ ur-science. It's the science of matching mathematical models to data, and so it's where inference meets the deduction. Such an important and fascinating subject should be widely taught and appreciated.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Well, next to math. And logic. And ethics.
- cossatot 8y ago
  I think a lot of us scientists wouldn't view any discipline not fundamentally based in collecting and interpreting observations as a science at all, much less an ur-science.
  - danharaj 8y ago
    Good luck observing anything without naming it and your observations. And once you have names, logic and mathematics are sure to follow.
    - harshreality 8y ago
      Logic and the rest of math are tools used in science, but I think the complaint was that science itself is about observation, developing theories, and testing theories against new observations. To elaborate: In pure subjects like math/logic, you have no observations, at least not really. Everything is abstract. Theorems follow the nomenclature of "hypothesis" and "conclusion" as if it's mimicking science, but every provable/disprovable statement in math, though it can be observed, formalized, and proved or disproved with enough effort or luck, is nevertheless merely a logical consequence of the axioms you started with. Theorems may provide insights, but they don't discover anything new. The conclusions of theorems are logically equivalent to the axioms. That's the essence of what it means to prove, mathematically. Whereas, in a science, there is no underlying theoretical truth. The only truths are quasi-truths that you develop based on observation and experiment, but they can all change tomorrow with a new experiment that is not beholden to any historical science precedent. Math/logic: everything is entirely based on axioms. The notion of "discovery" and "testing" of theorems is a cognitive fiction. Observation is merely the human process of deciding what things to try to prove. Everything is backstopped by abstract axioms and logic. Science: everything is entirely based on observation. The claim of scientific "truth" is a human fiction. We can never be absolutely sure of anything in science. There is no abstract truth backstopping science. Caveat: this does not imply anyone should be disputing scientific truth for practical purposes in everyday life. Disputing scientific consensus because it's not philosophically true is the refuge of spiritual quacks, religious apologists, and even rational people who are too in love with philosophy to take a step back and consider whether their philosophy is practical. "Oh, gravity isn't really true; quantum field theory isn't really true." Okay then, have fun not being able to move because you're floating in the air, and have fun without all modern electronics because they depend on the physics you're disputing, and have fun trying to find water with your dowsing rod.
      - duality 8y ago
        I agree with this and would add that science (by which I mean areas of knowledge observing phenomena and seeking to describe them quantitatively) interacts with deductive logic (including math) via information theory. Science without modeling would be devoid of predictive power. And, personally, I've never heard ethics or logic described as sciences. Please correct me if this is common terminology. But of course it doesn't diminish their importance.
      - cat199 8y ago
        You are confusing empirical science with science as a whole and missing formal science; The term 'science' generically should also be viewed within the philosophical context of 'art' e.g. an art vs a science.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Well, next to math. And logic. And ethics.

cossatot 8y ago
I think a lot of us scientists wouldn't view any discipline not fundamentally based in collecting and interpreting observations as a science at all, much less an ur-science.
- danharaj 8y ago
  Good luck observing anything without naming it and your observations. And once you have names, logic and mathematics are sure to follow.
  - harshreality 8y ago
    Logic and the rest of math are tools used in science, but I think the complaint was that science itself is about observation, developing theories, and testing theories against new observations. To elaborate: In pure subjects like math/logic, you have no observations, at least not really. Everything is abstract. Theorems follow the nomenclature of "hypothesis" and "conclusion" as if it's mimicking science, but every provable/disprovable statement in math, though it can be observed, formalized, and proved or disproved with enough effort or luck, is nevertheless merely a logical consequence of the axioms you started with. Theorems may provide insights, but they don't discover anything new. The conclusions of theorems are logically equivalent to the axioms. That's the essence of what it means to prove, mathematically. Whereas, in a science, there is no underlying theoretical truth. The only truths are quasi-truths that you develop based on observation and experiment, but they can all change tomorrow with a new experiment that is not beholden to any historical science precedent. Math/logic: everything is entirely based on axioms. The notion of "discovery" and "testing" of theorems is a cognitive fiction. Observation is merely the human process of deciding what things to try to prove. Everything is backstopped by abstract axioms and logic. Science: everything is entirely based on observation. The claim of scientific "truth" is a human fiction. We can never be absolutely sure of anything in science. There is no abstract truth backstopping science. Caveat: this does not imply anyone should be disputing scientific truth for practical purposes in everyday life. Disputing scientific consensus because it's not philosophically true is the refuge of spiritual quacks, religious apologists, and even rational people who are too in love with philosophy to take a step back and consider whether their philosophy is practical. "Oh, gravity isn't really true; quantum field theory isn't really true." Okay then, have fun not being able to move because you're floating in the air, and have fun without all modern electronics because they depend on the physics you're disputing, and have fun trying to find water with your dowsing rod.
    - duality 8y ago
      I agree with this and would add that science (by which I mean areas of knowledge observing phenomena and seeking to describe them quantitatively) interacts with deductive logic (including math) via information theory. Science without modeling would be devoid of predictive power. And, personally, I've never heard ethics or logic described as sciences. Please correct me if this is common terminology. But of course it doesn't diminish their importance.
    - cat199 8y ago
      You are confusing empirical science with science as a whole and missing formal science; The term 'science' generically should also be viewed within the philosophical context of 'art' e.g. an art vs a science.