3 ms·
Science is not like that really. Science is mostly experimental, which is pretty much trial and error. The theories produced through that process can closely
by apantel 2y ago
Science is not like that really. Science is mostly experimental, which is pretty much trial and error. The theories produced through that process can closely fit observed results and yet still be wrong, like Newton’s theory of gravitation. There isn’t much in science that is truly pure and proven all the way down to its foundation, though something doesn’t need to be pure or proven to have good predictive power and utility. And there isn’t much that is truly abstract in science since everything is ultimately trying to explain how material reality works, even physics.
Math is the only thing that is like what you’re describing.
- behnamoh 2y agoYou're right—what I said applies to math only. I guess I was thinking about how ML engineers try to frame a problem in math terms whereas our human brain finds the most efficient circuits to solve the problem.
- thechao 2y agoI'm still finding your comments a little confusing; and, now, bordering on the self-contradictory. I think you'll find that the proofs presented in the lower maths tend to be of "the book" form and really overstate the simplicity and clarity available to mathematics 'at the edge'. On the flip side, modern engineering sometimes gets to benefit from the work of centuries and the final (refined) output of science: the solutions are very elegant!