3 ms·

Statistical truths based on observation of reality is the basis for science. Statistical truth based on the text on the internet is the basis for something else

Statistical truths based on observation of reality is the basis for science. Statistical truth based on the text on the internet is the basis for something else, and I would personally not like to call whatever that is science, or any truths established this way "ground truths".

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Statistical truths based on observation of reality is the basis for incremental additions science. Statistical truths based on what you read in the textbook is what actually is almost all science, to everyone, at almost all times. There's few things in our lives any of us actually learned first-hand, empirically. Everything else we learned the same way LLMs did - as what is expected to be the right completion to a question or inquiry. The objective truth as we experience is things that, were we to make a prediction conditioned on them, our prediction would turn out correct. That doesn't mean we actually make such predictions often, or that we ever made such predictions learning it.
empath75 2y ago
What year did the Normans invade England? What's Newton's second law? Who was the last czar of Russia? How many moons does Jupiter have? I bet you "know" a lot of those facts not because you have observed them empirically, but because you read about them in books. And in fact, almost all scientists rely on reading for nearly everything they know about science, including nearly everything they know about their own specialties. Nobody has time to derive all of their knowledge of the world from personal observation, and most people who can read have probably learned almost all "facts" they know about the world from books.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Yup, and importantly, the correct answer to those is, in anyone's personal learning experience, almost always just what the authority figures in their lives (parents, teachers, peers they respect, or textbooks themselves) would accept as the correct answer! "Consensus reality" works so well for us most of the time, that we habitually "substitite the Moon for the finger pointing at the Moon" without realizing it.
- fancyfredbot 2y ago
  There's obviously nothing wrong with learning by reading, but the way you tell whether what you read is true is by seeing whether or not it fits in with observation of reality. That's the reason we're no longer reading the books about phlogiston.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > the way you tell whether what you read is true is by seeing whether or not it fits in with observation of reality The only way any of us ever gets to see "whether or not it fits in with observation of reality" is to see if they get an A or F on the test asking it. Seriously. The "moons of Jupiter" question is the only one of the above one gets to connect to an observation independent of humans, and then if they did, they'd be wrong, because you can't just count all the moons of Jupiter from your backyard with a DIY telescope. We know the correct answer only because some other people both built building-sized telescopes and had a bunch of car-sized telescopes thrown at Jupiter - and unless you had a chance to operate either, then for you the "correct answer" is what you read somewhere and that you expect other people to consider correct - this is the only criterion you have available.
    - fancyfredbot 2y ago
      Independently checking the information you read in textbooks is very difficult for sure. But it's still how we decide what's true and what's not true. If tomorrow a new moon was somehow orbiting Jupiter we'd say the textbooks were wrong, we wouldn't say the moon isn't there.
    - habinero 2y ago
      What? That's (1) not true and (2) says, uh, a lot of unintentional things about the way you approach the world. I'm not sure you realize quite how it makes you look. For one, it's not even internally consistent -- the people who built telescopes and satellites didn't "see" the moons, either. They got back a bunch of electrical signals and interpreted it to mean something. This worldview essentially boils down to the old "brain in a jar" which is fun to think about at 3am when you're 21 and stoned, but it's not otherwise useful so we discard it. For another, "how many moons does Jupiter have" doesn't have a correct answer, because it doesn't have an answer. There is no objective definition of what a "moon" is. There's not even a precise IAU technical definition. Jupiter has rings that are constantly changing, every single particle of those could be considered a moon if you want to get pedantic enough. I'm always a bit shocked and disappointed with people when they go "well, you learn it on a test and that's how you know" because ...no, no that's not at all how it works. The most essential part of learning is knowing how we know and knowing how certain we are in that conclusion. "Jupiter has 95 moons" is not a useful or true fact. "Jupiter has 95 named moons and thousands of smaller objects orbiting it and the International Astronomical Union has decided it's not naming any more of them." is both useful and predictive [0] because you know there isn't going to be any more unless something really wild happens. [0] https://science.nasa.gov/jupiter/jupiter-moons/ https://science.nasa.gov/jupiter/jupiter-moons/
abecedarius 2y ago
> personally not like to call whatever that is science A counterargument written pre-LLMs: https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5466 https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5466

TeMPOraL 2y ago

Statistical truths based on observation of reality is the basis for incremental additions science. Statistical truths based on what you read in the textbook is what actually is almost all science, to everyone, at almost all times. There's few things in our lives any of us actually learned first-hand, empirically. Everything else we learned the same way LLMs did - as what is expected to be the right completion to a question or inquiry. The objective truth as we experience is things that, were we to make a prediction conditioned on them, our prediction would turn out correct. That doesn't mean we actually make such predictions often, or that we ever made such predictions learning it.

empath75 2y ago

What year did the Normans invade England? What's Newton's second law? Who was the last czar of Russia? How many moons does Jupiter have? I bet you "know" a lot of those facts not because you have observed them empirically, but because you read about them in books. And in fact, almost all scientists rely on reading for nearly everything they know about science, including nearly everything they know about their own specialties. Nobody has time to derive all of their knowledge of the world from personal observation, and most people who can read have probably learned almost all "facts" they know about the world from books.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Yup, and importantly, the correct answer to those is, in anyone's personal learning experience, almost always just what the authority figures in their lives (parents, teachers, peers they respect, or textbooks themselves) would accept as the correct answer! "Consensus reality" works so well for us most of the time, that we habitually "substitite the Moon for the finger pointing at the Moon" without realizing it.
fancyfredbot 2y ago
There's obviously nothing wrong with learning by reading, but the way you tell whether what you read is true is by seeing whether or not it fits in with observation of reality. That's the reason we're no longer reading the books about phlogiston.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > the way you tell whether what you read is true is by seeing whether or not it fits in with observation of reality The only way any of us ever gets to see "whether or not it fits in with observation of reality" is to see if they get an A or F on the test asking it. Seriously. The "moons of Jupiter" question is the only one of the above one gets to connect to an observation independent of humans, and then if they did, they'd be wrong, because you can't just count all the moons of Jupiter from your backyard with a DIY telescope. We know the correct answer only because some other people both built building-sized telescopes and had a bunch of car-sized telescopes thrown at Jupiter - and unless you had a chance to operate either, then for you the "correct answer" is what you read somewhere and that you expect other people to consider correct - this is the only criterion you have available.
  - fancyfredbot 2y ago
    Independently checking the information you read in textbooks is very difficult for sure. But it's still how we decide what's true and what's not true. If tomorrow a new moon was somehow orbiting Jupiter we'd say the textbooks were wrong, we wouldn't say the moon isn't there.
  - habinero 2y ago
    What? That's (1) not true and (2) says, uh, a lot of unintentional things about the way you approach the world. I'm not sure you realize quite how it makes you look. For one, it's not even internally consistent -- the people who built telescopes and satellites didn't "see" the moons, either. They got back a bunch of electrical signals and interpreted it to mean something. This worldview essentially boils down to the old "brain in a jar" which is fun to think about at 3am when you're 21 and stoned, but it's not otherwise useful so we discard it. For another, "how many moons does Jupiter have" doesn't have a correct answer, because it doesn't have an answer. There is no objective definition of what a "moon" is. There's not even a precise IAU technical definition. Jupiter has rings that are constantly changing, every single particle of those could be considered a moon if you want to get pedantic enough. I'm always a bit shocked and disappointed with people when they go "well, you learn it on a test and that's how you know" because ...no, no that's not at all how it works. The most essential part of learning is knowing how we know and knowing how certain we are in that conclusion. "Jupiter has 95 moons" is not a useful or true fact. "Jupiter has 95 named moons and thousands of smaller objects orbiting it and the International Astronomical Union has decided it's not naming any more of them." is both useful and predictive [0] because you know there isn't going to be any more unless something really wild happens. [0] https://science.nasa.gov/jupiter/jupiter-moons/ https://science.nasa.gov/jupiter/jupiter-moons/

abecedarius 2y ago

> personally not like to call whatever that is science A counterargument written pre-LLMs: https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5466 https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5466