3 ms·
> someone who figures out truths by measuring then fitting is obviously doing science. No, the point is that is the wrong way around. Given any big amount of d
by diffeomorphism 7y ago
> someone who figures out truths by measuring then fitting is obviously doing science.
No, the point is that is the wrong way around. Given any big amount of data you are going to find something that fits, e.g https://www.xkcd.com/882/ https://www.xkcd.com/882/ . You are not "predicting" anything if you come up with your fit afterwards.
You can however use the fit you got to try to predict the outcome of future experiments. Checking that those experiments fit is science.
- roenxi 7y agoThere is no such thing as 'the right way round' when dealing with things that have been true for longer than the human species has existed and will continue to be true after the last human is dust. There are things that are true and things that are not, and we do our best to figure out what ideas get classified in which side of that hard boundary. We can agree on standards of evidence, but at the end of the day one can be scientific without being rigorous. The XKCD comic isn't making a judgement on whether the characters in it are or are not scientists - in fact, it calls them scientists - it is pointing out that statistical significance is a low bar of evidence and best treated with suspicion.
- dariosalvi78 7y ago> Given any big amount of data you are going to find something that fits Exactly, and that's the main problem at the base of all "data mining": it is probable that you will find a model that will only work with your data. Take a step outside and everything falls. You are basically giving a formula to noise. But often discoveries happen also by chance, so we shouldn't stop looking at unexpected patterns. However, once you find one, you should create a theory to explain it and setup a new experiment to confirm your theory. If you can....