i realized that i misread this original post. you are saying that what you do (study the brain) is more important than what some other scientists do (empiricall

i realized that i misread this original post. you are saying that what you do (study the brain) is more important than what some other scientists do (empirically study complex functions). i think this is kind of impolite for scientists to do in public, though of course, everyone makes jokes about it in their own company. anyway, after rereading, the only positive statement i take issue with is this: > There is something fundamental about the scientific method. Namely, it's the learning algorithm; the only one that actually actually works (so far). Everything else is just variations on or approximations of this algorithm. i believe that what i call the scientific method is merely a variation on/approximation of bayesian inference.