> An analogy from a couple years ago is bridge building before physics. You accumulate rules of thumb, you get a vague understand what works. You get better. Bu

> An analogy from a couple years ago is bridge building before physics. You accumulate rules of thumb, you get a vague understand what works. You get better. But you aren't producing a systematic field. Sounds like science to me; systematic recording of (perceived) cause and effect. Arguably, deep learning and cell biology both appear like equal parts pure wizardry and flailing in the dark, but maybe that’s just because we haven’t gathered enough pieces yet, and not necessarily because people are doing the wrong things, thus failing to advance?