3 ms·

People are so reactionary here when they read the title it's disappointing. "Post theory science" really probably means "explanations for complex behaviours ar

by nl 5y ago

People are so reactionary here when they read the title it's disappointing. "Post theory science" really probably means "explanations for complex behaviours are complex and in some cases beyond simply testable theories". We've seen this in quantum physics, where things like string theory are on the edge of testability. In the first example in the article, they find limits of the behavioural-economic Prospect Theory. This isn't surprising - the tools used to develop that were pretty primitive compared to what we have now. In this case this is a lot more like how science used to be done: collect data, make some observations, discover they don't align with the current theory and then people might be stuck for a while before they come up with a new one. Learnt computer models are helpful because if they are good enough they simulate the real world better than many simple mathematical models do.

csdvrx 5y ago
> People are so reactionary here when they read the title it's disappointing. Indeed, I'm sad too when reading some of the comments here > "Post theory science" really probably means "explanations for complex behaviours are complex and in some cases beyond simply testable theories" Case in point: agent based modeling https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/agent-based-modeling https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-he... > "Agent-based models are computer simulations used to study the interactions between people, things, places, and time. They are stochastic models built from the bottom up meaning individual agents (often people in epidemiology) are assigned certain attributes. The agents are programmed to behave and interact with other agents and the environment in certain ways. These interactions produce emergent effects that may differ from effects of individual agents. Agent-based modeling differs from traditional, regression-based methods in that, like systems dynamics modeling, it allows for the exploration of complex systems that display non-independence of individuals and feedback loops in causal mechanisms." https://www.nasa.gov/consortium/AgentBasedModeling/ https://www.nasa.gov/consortium/AgentBasedModeling/ > "ABM enables an examination that would take years, decades, or centuries, to be performed in a matter of minutes. An important topic that must be addressed in any ABM application is the identification of the bounds of the work and the relationship between the model and the related real-world situation."
- gls2ro 5y ago
  > An important topic that must be addressed in any ABM application is the identification of the bounds of the work and the relationship between the model and the related real-world situation Here I think is the core of the whole problem: In case of people (as quoted "often people in epidemiology") how can we verify if ABM is correctly modeling people if we still don't know a lot about ourselves? For example we don't yet have a theory of consciousness, or we still are not able to accurately explain the process of how a child learns (yes we have multiple theories that we switch when one is not working) and so many other things. The same can be said when we model other things from planets to animals and particles: How can we know that the model is accurate? I am not saying the new way of doing science using "AI" is not science, but I am saying we need to move pass bold headlines and make sure that we results we take out of this have value and hold out.
  - _0ffh 5y ago
    Yeah, I think it is important to stress the point that the true strength of models like ABMs is that by systematically testing their behaviour for different circumstances and parameterisations can lead the experimenter to new qualitative insights! To just run some simulation and trust it's output in any even remotely quantitative sense is no more scientific than reading the future from tea leaves!
raverbashing 5y ago
Pretty much The Popperian view that everything is testable and falsifiable (given that in the real world there are limited resources and time) is counter-productive. Going by that view no medicine or treatment are scientific (since none of them work 100% of the time) Give me models that work and have predictive power. Skip the pedantry.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  What? "This medicine produces X effect in Y% of the experimental group with Z p-value" is absolutely testable and falsifiable.
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    > "This medicine produces X effect in Y% of the experimental group with Z p-value" is absolutely testable and falsifiable. Correct. It is, up to a range. If I replicate the experiment I'll have a different Y% which might be a slight difference or not. But since it's not 100%, your theory about that experiment has been falsified. It's easy to talk about falsifiability giving examples about black swans but that's a naive view in terms of results which are not clear yes/no answers and where multiple variables interact.
    - rsfern 5y ago
      You’re describing reproducibility in checking a hypothesis about statistical association. There doesn’t need to be any theory involved to generate that hypothesis. Often there is, but often in modern drug discovery pipeline the lead generation comes first and theory comes later. A theory-based hypothesis in this case would be something like, we think this disease is caused by this specific protein causes a disease, and this drug candidate will bind well to the protein and inhibit the disease causing reaction, so the drug will be useful to treat the disease. There are experiments to be done to check each element in that chain of theory, including the statistical association of disease outcomes
laserbeam 5y ago
> We've seen this in quantum physics, where things like string theory are on the edge of testability I mean... Quantum theory itself has actually given lots of solid predictions. They are statistical in nature, sure, but easily testable, and some can even be done at home (stuff involving polarized light filters). String theory... Is just math that works out. I don't even know if it predicts anything. However it's certainly more complex than to allow us to say "we've seen this in quantum physics" without a PhD in the field. Honestly, I find the article superficial. A cute but ultimately shallow idea looking for arguments to support it.

by nl 5y ago

csdvrx 5y ago

> People are so reactionary here when they read the title it's disappointing. Indeed, I'm sad too when reading some of the comments here > "Post theory science" really probably means "explanations for complex behaviours are complex and in some cases beyond simply testable theories" Case in point: agent based modeling https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/agent-based-modeling https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-he... > "Agent-based models are computer simulations used to study the interactions between people, things, places, and time. They are stochastic models built from the bottom up meaning individual agents (often people in epidemiology) are assigned certain attributes. The agents are programmed to behave and interact with other agents and the environment in certain ways. These interactions produce emergent effects that may differ from effects of individual agents. Agent-based modeling differs from traditional, regression-based methods in that, like systems dynamics modeling, it allows for the exploration of complex systems that display non-independence of individuals and feedback loops in causal mechanisms." https://www.nasa.gov/consortium/AgentBasedModeling/ https://www.nasa.gov/consortium/AgentBasedModeling/ > "ABM enables an examination that would take years, decades, or centuries, to be performed in a matter of minutes. An important topic that must be addressed in any ABM application is the identification of the bounds of the work and the relationship between the model and the related real-world situation."

gls2ro 5y ago
> An important topic that must be addressed in any ABM application is the identification of the bounds of the work and the relationship between the model and the related real-world situation Here I think is the core of the whole problem: In case of people (as quoted "often people in epidemiology") how can we verify if ABM is correctly modeling people if we still don't know a lot about ourselves? For example we don't yet have a theory of consciousness, or we still are not able to accurately explain the process of how a child learns (yes we have multiple theories that we switch when one is not working) and so many other things. The same can be said when we model other things from planets to animals and particles: How can we know that the model is accurate? I am not saying the new way of doing science using "AI" is not science, but I am saying we need to move pass bold headlines and make sure that we results we take out of this have value and hold out.
- _0ffh 5y ago
  Yeah, I think it is important to stress the point that the true strength of models like ABMs is that by systematically testing their behaviour for different circumstances and parameterisations can lead the experimenter to new qualitative insights! To just run some simulation and trust it's output in any even remotely quantitative sense is no more scientific than reading the future from tea leaves!

raverbashing 5y ago

Pretty much The Popperian view that everything is testable and falsifiable (given that in the real world there are limited resources and time) is counter-productive. Going by that view no medicine or treatment are scientific (since none of them work 100% of the time) Give me models that work and have predictive power. Skip the pedantry.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
What? "This medicine produces X effect in Y% of the experimental group with Z p-value" is absolutely testable and falsifiable.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  > "This medicine produces X effect in Y% of the experimental group with Z p-value" is absolutely testable and falsifiable. Correct. It is, up to a range. If I replicate the experiment I'll have a different Y% which might be a slight difference or not. But since it's not 100%, your theory about that experiment has been falsified. It's easy to talk about falsifiability giving examples about black swans but that's a naive view in terms of results which are not clear yes/no answers and where multiple variables interact.
  - rsfern 5y ago
    You’re describing reproducibility in checking a hypothesis about statistical association. There doesn’t need to be any theory involved to generate that hypothesis. Often there is, but often in modern drug discovery pipeline the lead generation comes first and theory comes later. A theory-based hypothesis in this case would be something like, we think this disease is caused by this specific protein causes a disease, and this drug candidate will bind well to the protein and inhibit the disease causing reaction, so the drug will be useful to treat the disease. There are experiments to be done to check each element in that chain of theory, including the statistical association of disease outcomes

laserbeam 5y ago

> We've seen this in quantum physics, where things like string theory are on the edge of testability I mean... Quantum theory itself has actually given lots of solid predictions. They are statistical in nature, sure, but easily testable, and some can even be done at home (stuff involving polarized light filters). String theory... Is just math that works out. I don't even know if it predicts anything. However it's certainly more complex than to allow us to say "we've seen this in quantum physics" without a PhD in the field. Honestly, I find the article superficial. A cute but ultimately shallow idea looking for arguments to support it.