5 ms·

>So I asked ChatGPT to explain it to me, I came up with my own mental model from it's explanation, told it that, then it corrected me where I misunderstood thin

>So I asked ChatGPT to explain it to me, I came up with my own mental model from it's explanation, told it that, then it corrected me where I misunderstood things. We went backwards and forwards for an hour, me asking questions, it correcting me, until I felt like I understood the whole picture. If you're only checking your understanding against the one source you used to obtain it, how can you tell whether your understanding coincides with reality (or rather, with general scientific understanding), and not just with the source you read? And I'm not asking just about ChatGPT; the same question could apply to any source. Books are not exempt from containing errors.

ChrisGreenHeur 2mo ago
Same question applies if you only check it against your children's biology books
- fluoridation 2mo ago
  Uh, yeah. That's what I said. Did you have a point or...?
  - elAhmo 2mo ago
    For majority of people, especially children, book is an authoritative source. Virtually no one outside of research fields and very excited enthusiasts will check sources in depth to see whether what is shown in the book is true or not. So, I think the point OP is making is that most people don't really check sources while learning things 'the conventional way'.
    - fluoridation 2mo ago
      We have to distinguish learning from, let's call it, recreational education. If you're learning a topic, you're not going to be using a single book. Not even schoolchildren do that. Regardless of whether you consider a book an authoritative source, if you read multiple books those books will have to agree with each other, and where they don't you'll experience some confusion until you can resolve the contradiction. If you're only ingesting information from a single source, be that a book, a teacher, or an LLM, then you haven't really learned, because your knowledge base is unmoored. You can't learn history by studying Tolkien's mythos.
__alexs 2mo ago
How can you really say you you've learnt the alphabet if you haven't read the document in which the first use of the letter Y appeared?
- fluoridation 2mo ago
  Because you can successfully use it to communicate with other people. That's the grounding truth. If you'd only ever read about it and never actually employed it then yes, you would not be able to make that claim.
  - __alexs 2mo ago
    That's exactly what OP was doing, or does teaching kids not qualify somehow?
    - fluoridation 2mo ago
      It's not the same thing. A language is a closed system, it just requires that the participants agree on the rules in order to be successful. Biology is not a language, it's a field of study of phenomena that exist independently of minds. If you read a biology textbook (or an LLM's output about biology) and then relate to someone else what you've read, you and the other person can discuss the topic, and be no closer to ascertain whether what you two understand has any basis in reality.
      - __alexs 2mo ago
        Biology is in some sense a language, how do we even agree on what the boundaries of biology vs other domains of science are without participants agreeing on the rules? In any case I think you have an overly narrow definition of learning that we're unlikely to come to terms over.
        fluoridation 2mo ago
        >how do we even agree on what the boundaries of biology vs other domains of science are without participants agreeing on the rules? Those boundaries are completely imaginary and don't exist in reality. In reality there's no biology, there's only elementary particles interacting physically. Whether you agree with someone else to classify a phenomenon as biological or chemical, you're not refining your knowledge of the real world, you're just performing an organizational task. But, say, how many times the tympanic ear evolved independently is a real phenomenon that can be investigated, and it's something that you're either correct, incorrect, or ignorant about. If I tell you it evolved five times, what more can either of us gleam about the real facts by just discussing this factoid back and forth, if neither of us has access to any additional knowledge or way to put this datum to the test?
TeMPOraL 2mo ago
Self-consistency and consistency with your lived experience are good heuristics. Reality is self-consistent, so anything that doesn't add up indicated an error in the source or your understanding of it (or both). EDIT: I think it's a kind thing you need to tune yourself into. OTOH, I've observed many (most?) people seemingly being completely oblivious to self-consistency issues of their beliefs and mental models, or even texts they're reading or instructions they're following, and yet... somehow they're generally more successful at life because of it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
- fluoridation 2mo ago
  How do you do that with topics not directly experimenceable, like quantum mechanics or, as in this case, silicon manufacture?
  - RandomLensman 2mo ago
    Not the OP, but I don't think you can. The understanding someone manufacturing silicon has will be not be attainable by reading about it etc. Similar for QM, no replacement for doing (some of) the math yourself, be involved in experiments etc.
  - TeMPOraL 2mo ago
    The very first thing I mention: self-consistency. It's the only thing you have if you don't have any empirical data. It's the only thing anyone has, really. QM scientists reading QM papers and experiment reports of other people, and talking with each other, are still relying on self-consistency to sniff their own (or other people's) mistakes.
    - fluoridation 2mo ago
      >The very first thing I mention: self-consistency. So if I consistently tell you that that lithium atoms are heavier than carbon atoms, that would make it more likely to be true? >QM scientists reading QM papers and experiment reports of other people, and talking with each other, are still relying on self-consistency to sniff their own (or other people's) mistakes. Physicists don't need self-consistency. They can test consistency against reality itself. That's not self-consistency, that's just plain old empiricism.
Ravus 2mo ago
Concrete high-profile example: in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!", Feynman told of a ball which, in a Brazilian college-level physics book, was described as having a 40% higher acceleration that it would actually have in practice. Turns out that the author had done a thought experiment but neglected to factor in the rotational inertia.

ChrisGreenHeur 2mo ago

Same question applies if you only check it against your children's biology books

fluoridation 2mo ago
Uh, yeah. That's what I said. Did you have a point or...?
- elAhmo 2mo ago
  For majority of people, especially children, book is an authoritative source. Virtually no one outside of research fields and very excited enthusiasts will check sources in depth to see whether what is shown in the book is true or not. So, I think the point OP is making is that most people don't really check sources while learning things 'the conventional way'.
  - fluoridation 2mo ago
    We have to distinguish learning from, let's call it, recreational education. If you're learning a topic, you're not going to be using a single book. Not even schoolchildren do that. Regardless of whether you consider a book an authoritative source, if you read multiple books those books will have to agree with each other, and where they don't you'll experience some confusion until you can resolve the contradiction. If you're only ingesting information from a single source, be that a book, a teacher, or an LLM, then you haven't really learned, because your knowledge base is unmoored. You can't learn history by studying Tolkien's mythos.

__alexs 2mo ago

How can you really say you you've learnt the alphabet if you haven't read the document in which the first use of the letter Y appeared?

fluoridation 2mo ago
Because you can successfully use it to communicate with other people. That's the grounding truth. If you'd only ever read about it and never actually employed it then yes, you would not be able to make that claim.
- __alexs 2mo ago
  That's exactly what OP was doing, or does teaching kids not qualify somehow?
  - fluoridation 2mo ago
    It's not the same thing. A language is a closed system, it just requires that the participants agree on the rules in order to be successful. Biology is not a language, it's a field of study of phenomena that exist independently of minds. If you read a biology textbook (or an LLM's output about biology) and then relate to someone else what you've read, you and the other person can discuss the topic, and be no closer to ascertain whether what you two understand has any basis in reality.
    - __alexs 2mo ago
      Biology is in some sense a language, how do we even agree on what the boundaries of biology vs other domains of science are without participants agreeing on the rules? In any case I think you have an overly narrow definition of learning that we're unlikely to come to terms over.
      - fluoridation 2mo ago
        >how do we even agree on what the boundaries of biology vs other domains of science are without participants agreeing on the rules? Those boundaries are completely imaginary and don't exist in reality. In reality there's no biology, there's only elementary particles interacting physically. Whether you agree with someone else to classify a phenomenon as biological or chemical, you're not refining your knowledge of the real world, you're just performing an organizational task. But, say, how many times the tympanic ear evolved independently is a real phenomenon that can be investigated, and it's something that you're either correct, incorrect, or ignorant about. If I tell you it evolved five times, what more can either of us gleam about the real facts by just discussing this factoid back and forth, if neither of us has access to any additional knowledge or way to put this datum to the test?

TeMPOraL 2mo ago

Self-consistency and consistency with your lived experience are good heuristics. Reality is self-consistent, so anything that doesn't add up indicated an error in the source or your understanding of it (or both). EDIT: I think it's a kind thing you need to tune yourself into. OTOH, I've observed many (most?) people seemingly being completely oblivious to self-consistency issues of their beliefs and mental models, or even texts they're reading or instructions they're following, and yet... somehow they're generally more successful at life because of it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

fluoridation 2mo ago
How do you do that with topics not directly experimenceable, like quantum mechanics or, as in this case, silicon manufacture?
- RandomLensman 2mo ago
  Not the OP, but I don't think you can. The understanding someone manufacturing silicon has will be not be attainable by reading about it etc. Similar for QM, no replacement for doing (some of) the math yourself, be involved in experiments etc.
- TeMPOraL 2mo ago
  The very first thing I mention: self-consistency. It's the only thing you have if you don't have any empirical data. It's the only thing anyone has, really. QM scientists reading QM papers and experiment reports of other people, and talking with each other, are still relying on self-consistency to sniff their own (or other people's) mistakes.
  - fluoridation 2mo ago
    >The very first thing I mention: self-consistency. So if I consistently tell you that that lithium atoms are heavier than carbon atoms, that would make it more likely to be true? >QM scientists reading QM papers and experiment reports of other people, and talking with each other, are still relying on self-consistency to sniff their own (or other people's) mistakes. Physicists don't need self-consistency. They can test consistency against reality itself. That's not self-consistency, that's just plain old empiricism.

Ravus 2mo ago

Concrete high-profile example: in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!", Feynman told of a ball which, in a Brazilian college-level physics book, was described as having a 40% higher acceleration that it would actually have in practice. Turns out that the author had done a thought experiment but neglected to factor in the rotational inertia.