7 ms·

For a while I held onto this archaic 1950 textbook on geology, solely because the introductory chapter included something like "the now thoroughly discredited c

For a while I held onto this archaic 1950 textbook on geology, solely because the introductory chapter included something like "the now thoroughly discredited crackpot theory of plate tectonics, which we will not consider here."

np_tedious 5y ago
That's fun. I had the converse experience when I discovered and read an old pop science article that discussed the light ether as if it were established fact. I was quite young and it was several years until I learned in high school physics class that this was complete bunk.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Khelavaster 5y ago
  And it's not until further studying that you learn about the Anderson-Higgs effect in superconductors--how a gravity wave burst is generated every time a type 2 superconductor becomes superconducting. Light-ether is real. It's [very oversimplifying] the EM pressure from maintaining every EMF-free zone (the insides of particles superconductors), plus pressure of all the cosmic background radiation.
antognini 5y ago
When I was a kid I read a book published in the 1980s called Yes We Have No Neutrons. It covered various episodes in pseudoscience like N-rays, cold fusion, and Freudian psychology. But there was also a chapter on neural networks that did not age very well at all.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  The phrase "neural network" is itself a kind of pseudoscience, in being neither neural nor a network -- but an essentially pseudoscientific description of an algorithm better called "ensembled regression" or something of that kind. NNs do not model the brain, and have basically nothing to do with it. I'd imagine rereading that chapter would be a good idea.
  - canjobear 5y ago
    This is a terminological question which has nothing to do with whether a textbook in the 80s was right or not in calling neural networks a crockpot theory. The terminology is now fixed and anyone who has more than a passing acquaintance with these things knows that neural networks have almost nothing to do with biological neurons.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      It's a 1997, I've just skim read the chapeter -- and it seems entirely correct. Its views here are consistent with my own, NN is just a name for a technique -- baring little relation to the claims made about it in a hysterical press.
    - rmatt2000 5y ago
      If it's a crockpot theory, it probably just hasn't simmered long enough.
    - aaron695 5y ago
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Ensemble methods have basically nothing to do with neural networks. The output of a NN is not some kind of "average" or "best pick" taken from the outputs of individual neurons. Rather, there are multiple layers each of which performs a kind of generalized multivariate regression on the outputs of the previous layer, and the parameterization for the whole hierarchy of layers is fitted as a whole. Very different.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      NNs with dropout are, trivially, an ensembling. And I think it's not so hard to show NNs, by default, meet a criterion like it -- namely that if we have something like batch normalization between the layers, so they are something PMF-like, then each is taking an expectation. either way, the technique has absolutely nothing to do with the biological cells we call neurones -- as much as decision tress have to do with forests. It is metaphorical mumbojumbo taken up by a credulous press and repeated in research grant proposals by the present generation of young jobbing PhDs soon to be out of a job. The whole structure is, as it has ever been, is on the verge of a winter brought about by this shysterism. Self-driving cars, due in 2016, are likewise "just around the corner".
temporalparts 5y ago
Do you have a picture of the book? Can you post a picture of the passage and cover? That would be fascinating to see! (I believe you fwiw, not doing the whole "pics or it didn't happen" :) )
- photochemsyn 5y ago
  I think the title included "Geomorphology" but I can't seem to find the exact instance. To be fair to geologists of that era, there wasn't a ton of evidence for plate tectonics at the time other than the matchup between continental boundaries. The mid-ocean spreading discoveries of a decade later kind of sealed the deal.
wolverine876 5y ago
This theory of crackpot theories is popular with the crackpots, and I suspect it's a good signal of them. Some people do win the lottery, but your lottery ticket is still worthless.

np_tedious 5y ago

That's fun. I had the converse experience when I discovered and read an old pop science article that discussed the light ether as if it were established fact. I was quite young and it was several years until I learned in high school physics class that this was complete bunk.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Khelavaster 5y ago
And it's not until further studying that you learn about the Anderson-Higgs effect in superconductors--how a gravity wave burst is generated every time a type 2 superconductor becomes superconducting. Light-ether is real. It's [very oversimplifying] the EM pressure from maintaining every EMF-free zone (the insides of particles superconductors), plus pressure of all the cosmic background radiation.

antognini 5y ago

When I was a kid I read a book published in the 1980s called Yes We Have No Neutrons. It covered various episodes in pseudoscience like N-rays, cold fusion, and Freudian psychology. But there was also a chapter on neural networks that did not age very well at all.

mjburgess 5y ago
The phrase "neural network" is itself a kind of pseudoscience, in being neither neural nor a network -- but an essentially pseudoscientific description of an algorithm better called "ensembled regression" or something of that kind. NNs do not model the brain, and have basically nothing to do with it. I'd imagine rereading that chapter would be a good idea.
- canjobear 5y ago
  This is a terminological question which has nothing to do with whether a textbook in the 80s was right or not in calling neural networks a crockpot theory. The terminology is now fixed and anyone who has more than a passing acquaintance with these things knows that neural networks have almost nothing to do with biological neurons.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    It's a 1997, I've just skim read the chapeter -- and it seems entirely correct. Its views here are consistent with my own, NN is just a name for a technique -- baring little relation to the claims made about it in a hysterical press.
  - rmatt2000 5y ago
    If it's a crockpot theory, it probably just hasn't simmered long enough.
  - aaron695 5y ago
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Ensemble methods have basically nothing to do with neural networks. The output of a NN is not some kind of "average" or "best pick" taken from the outputs of individual neurons. Rather, there are multiple layers each of which performs a kind of generalized multivariate regression on the outputs of the previous layer, and the parameterization for the whole hierarchy of layers is fitted as a whole. Very different.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    NNs with dropout are, trivially, an ensembling. And I think it's not so hard to show NNs, by default, meet a criterion like it -- namely that if we have something like batch normalization between the layers, so they are something PMF-like, then each is taking an expectation. either way, the technique has absolutely nothing to do with the biological cells we call neurones -- as much as decision tress have to do with forests. It is metaphorical mumbojumbo taken up by a credulous press and repeated in research grant proposals by the present generation of young jobbing PhDs soon to be out of a job. The whole structure is, as it has ever been, is on the verge of a winter brought about by this shysterism. Self-driving cars, due in 2016, are likewise "just around the corner".

temporalparts 5y ago

Do you have a picture of the book? Can you post a picture of the passage and cover? That would be fascinating to see! (I believe you fwiw, not doing the whole "pics or it didn't happen" :) )

photochemsyn 5y ago
I think the title included "Geomorphology" but I can't seem to find the exact instance. To be fair to geologists of that era, there wasn't a ton of evidence for plate tectonics at the time other than the matchup between continental boundaries. The mid-ocean spreading discoveries of a decade later kind of sealed the deal.

wolverine876 5y ago

This theory of crackpot theories is popular with the crackpots, and I suspect it's a good signal of them. Some people do win the lottery, but your lottery ticket is still worthless.