3 ms·

Readers of Nassim will also recognize his critiques of academia are mainly targeted at social sciences and similar fields that can only “prove” their findings s

Readers of Nassim will also recognize his critiques of academia are mainly targeted at social sciences and similar fields that can only “prove” their findings statistically, where p-hacking and incorrect use of models and wrong distributions and the like result in bad findings passed off as good. That’s not the case with computer science, at least in systems subfields like filesystems, where theories can be implemented in isolation and shown to either work or not.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
Disagree. Artificial benchmarks and p hacking for showing good performance in CS are also statistically proven. The best result in geekbench doesn’t mean anything to me.
- SkyMarshal 5y ago
  Benchmarks and geekbench are not "where theories can be implemented in isolation and shown to either work or not."
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    Maybe I don’t understand your point, in psychology for example sterile lab tests are isolated and can be shown to work or not, is it not the same idea here?
    - SkyMarshal 5y ago
      CompSci theories are essentially mathematical proofs. You create a proof of something, then you build it to test it, to make sure your math is actually correct, and that the theory works in implementation. Proof of correctness doesn't rely on having a large cohort of test subjects undergoing an experimental trial of some sort, and then interpreting the results with statistical models, distributions, p-values, etc. I don't know psychology in depth, but if there are similar kinds proofs without requiring statistical analysis of a large experimental cohort, then I don't think Taleb's criticisms are aimed at those either. It's the fundamental problem of knowledge - can truth be known via logic and reason, or via empiricism and observation? The answer to both is, sometimes, but with caveats. Peter Norvig also wrote a good take on all the ways studies using experimental cohorts can go wrong: https://norvig.com/experiment-design.html https://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

GhettoComputers 5y ago

Disagree. Artificial benchmarks and p hacking for showing good performance in CS are also statistically proven. The best result in geekbench doesn’t mean anything to me.

SkyMarshal 5y ago
Benchmarks and geekbench are not "where theories can be implemented in isolation and shown to either work or not."
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Maybe I don’t understand your point, in psychology for example sterile lab tests are isolated and can be shown to work or not, is it not the same idea here?
  - SkyMarshal 5y ago
    CompSci theories are essentially mathematical proofs. You create a proof of something, then you build it to test it, to make sure your math is actually correct, and that the theory works in implementation. Proof of correctness doesn't rely on having a large cohort of test subjects undergoing an experimental trial of some sort, and then interpreting the results with statistical models, distributions, p-values, etc. I don't know psychology in depth, but if there are similar kinds proofs without requiring statistical analysis of a large experimental cohort, then I don't think Taleb's criticisms are aimed at those either. It's the fundamental problem of knowledge - can truth be known via logic and reason, or via empiricism and observation? The answer to both is, sometimes, but with caveats. Peter Norvig also wrote a good take on all the ways studies using experimental cohorts can go wrong: https://norvig.com/experiment-design.html https://norvig.com/experiment-design.html