3 ms·
I wouldn't use it as an example to prove that that we have a history of rationalizing explanations where none exist. Certainly, as you mentioned, the explanatio
by composter 4y ago
I wouldn't use it as an example to prove that that we have a history of rationalizing explanations where none exist. Certainly, as you mentioned, the explanation takes the form of a set of differential equations. I would instead argue that there is a history of incorrect rationalizations from individuals who were akin to "real world aircraft engineers" in their time and that these rationalizations are still present in discourse around wing lift / design.
- geraneum 4y agoThe fact that we have a history of rationalization was actually never questioned. Rather it was pointed out that it’s not the only thing that our minds do and that’s something you need to consider. There are also humans who hallucinate. Studying this phenomenon is useful, yet, on its own, it’s says nothing about how human brain works in general.
- composter 4y agoI took issue with the example of aircraft airfoil design, probably too pedantically, due to the challenges technical individuals have had related to rationalizing the behavior, despite a mathematical explanation. But I completely agree with your point that rationalization alone isn't sufficient. We struggle to describe the universe solely in words and rely on other tools to further describe phenomena. How to provide AI models with these additional capacities isn't necessarily clear yet but there are some interesting ideas out there: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/01/wolframalpha-as-the-way-to-bring-computational-knowledge-superpowers-to-chatgpt/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/01/wolframalpha-as-...