4 ms·

Did you read the post...?

by jegp 9d ago

jibal 9d ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
- throwaway27448 9d ago
  [flagged]
- jegp 9d ago
  Arguments are fine. Vacuous statements need grounding. The follow-up is way more detailed
random3 9d ago
Yes. It conflates a bunch of things > TL;DR I claim that modern science is synonymous with open source software That's a strong statement that's not supported by the arguments and IMO misguided. I don't have a problem with "open", but rather with "software". Both science and software deal with models, however the focus is quite different. I suspect you conflate theory with models. The goal of science is to produce and test theories — that's an inductive/abductive process. A model, regardless of whether it's reified into mathematical formulas or software, is a means of making a theory operational enough that its consequences can be derived and confronted with observations. Software often starts downstream of this: it's a reification of theories, models, algorithms, or findings that are the result of research. Of course software can also be used as part of the research process itself. The distinction is roughly the familiar one between research and development.
- jegp 9d ago
  Thank you for engaging. This is a much more insightful take. If I'm reading yiur argument right, you're saying that deployed models are downstream versions (reified) of aa theory. Theory, being the actual object of science. I think this misrepresents science. Science is the ability to build testable knowledge. From that,how would you separate the test from the science? In fact, in an ideal world, why wouldn't you want your theory to be put in a format that's executable? I'm not saying that those things are always the same, my (provocative) title is based on a dream where we can imagine theory and model coexist because software is now a thing.
  - random3 9d ago
    [dead]
- D-Machine 9d ago
  I think it is worse than that. Science is a process for resolving disagreements, ambiguity, and uncertainty, and also for discovering abstractions (patterns) among phenomena. It is social and can not be reduced to a binary / digital file, as it is dynamic and ongoing, and, fundamentally, exploratory. Software is a static program and basically none of these things. Software development is kind of like science, in some ways, in that you discover abstractions and patterns, and this requires resolving disagreements and ambiguity between you and your users, but in the end, the user demands are usually fairly concrete and specific (though no one may know how to express those demands precisely, initially), and the process is not really exploratory in the way science is. It just really isn't a very good comparison IMO.
  - dist-epoch 9d ago
    > Science is a process for resolving disagreements, ambiguity, and uncertainty ... It is social More dramatically stated as: Science progresses one funeral at a time. > An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
    - analog31 9d ago
      Ironically, Max Planck's funeral was in 1947. Disclosure: Old scientist.
  - jegp 8d ago
    I actually disagree that software is a static program. If a program always have the same behaviour, it's a pretty bad program. You need inputs and, as demonstrated by the recent LLM inputs, parameters you can tune to correctly address a specific context. I would also contest the point about science being social. To me, science is the interplay between social constructions and physical reality. Which is why tests and experiments are so fundamental. Your point about software development as kind of like science is spot on: why not be exploratory/empirical in software development? Couldn't we imagine an LLM, say, that would go out and try to solve a question we frame? This seems strikingly close to autoresearch [1] [1]: https://github.com/karpathy/autoresearch https://github.com/karpathy/autoresearch

Did you read the post...?

by jegp 9d ago

Did you read the post...?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

throwaway27448 9d ago
[flagged]
jegp 9d ago
Arguments are fine. Vacuous statements need grounding. The follow-up is way more detailed

random3 9d ago

Yes. It conflates a bunch of things > TL;DR I claim that modern science is synonymous with open source software That's a strong statement that's not supported by the arguments and IMO misguided. I don't have a problem with "open", but rather with "software". Both science and software deal with models, however the focus is quite different. I suspect you conflate theory with models. The goal of science is to produce and test theories — that's an inductive/abductive process. A model, regardless of whether it's reified into mathematical formulas or software, is a means of making a theory operational enough that its consequences can be derived and confronted with observations. Software often starts downstream of this: it's a reification of theories, models, algorithms, or findings that are the result of research. Of course software can also be used as part of the research process itself. The distinction is roughly the familiar one between research and development.

jegp 9d ago
Thank you for engaging. This is a much more insightful take. If I'm reading yiur argument right, you're saying that deployed models are downstream versions (reified) of aa theory. Theory, being the actual object of science. I think this misrepresents science. Science is the ability to build testable knowledge. From that,how would you separate the test from the science? In fact, in an ideal world, why wouldn't you want your theory to be put in a format that's executable? I'm not saying that those things are always the same, my (provocative) title is based on a dream where we can imagine theory and model coexist because software is now a thing.
- random3 9d ago
  [dead]
D-Machine 9d ago
I think it is worse than that. Science is a process for resolving disagreements, ambiguity, and uncertainty, and also for discovering abstractions (patterns) among phenomena. It is social and can not be reduced to a binary / digital file, as it is dynamic and ongoing, and, fundamentally, exploratory. Software is a static program and basically none of these things. Software development is kind of like science, in some ways, in that you discover abstractions and patterns, and this requires resolving disagreements and ambiguity between you and your users, but in the end, the user demands are usually fairly concrete and specific (though no one may know how to express those demands precisely, initially), and the process is not really exploratory in the way science is. It just really isn't a very good comparison IMO.
- dist-epoch 9d ago
  > Science is a process for resolving disagreements, ambiguity, and uncertainty ... It is social More dramatically stated as: Science progresses one funeral at a time. > An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
  - analog31 9d ago
    Ironically, Max Planck's funeral was in 1947. Disclosure: Old scientist.
- jegp 8d ago
  I actually disagree that software is a static program. If a program always have the same behaviour, it's a pretty bad program. You need inputs and, as demonstrated by the recent LLM inputs, parameters you can tune to correctly address a specific context. I would also contest the point about science being social. To me, science is the interplay between social constructions and physical reality. Which is why tests and experiments are so fundamental. Your point about software development as kind of like science is spot on: why not be exploratory/empirical in software development? Couldn't we imagine an LLM, say, that would go out and try to solve a question we frame? This seems strikingly close to autoresearch [1] [1]: https://github.com/karpathy/autoresearch https://github.com/karpathy/autoresearch