4 ms·
>There's no guarantee that the phenomenon we're interested in will be expressible in an F=ma manner. Complexity exists. That's a fair point. But having a good
by yldedly 5y ago
>There's no guarantee that the phenomenon we're interested in will be expressible in an F=ma manner. Complexity exists.
That's a fair point. But having a good theory doesn't necessarily mean that it's expressible as a succinct equation. The theory of how metabolism works is insanely complicated, but it's a good theory nonetheless, because every part of it plays a functional role, it explains a wide range of phenomena and it's logically compatible with other successful theories. None of that holds for deep learning models.
- netcan 5y agoGood points. Besides being an overly provocative term, I don't think "post-theory science" is a belligerent to "theory-based" science. It's not logically compatible or incompatible with other theories, because it's not logically based. It may be contradict theoretical predictions, and that's where empiricism comes in. Long term, if successful, deep learning models of metabolism may be useful or irrelevant to the development of a theoretical understanding.