>> It is really not true that there is a set of simple rules adequate to tell
>> people how to evaluate scientific results effectively.
Get the book and then speak from a position of knowledge by telling me
something that you believe it is missing. When I cite a specific example that
you can go and verify or disprove, it is not an opinion but a valid data point
(and your perception of my vehemence and/or confidence and your personal
reaction to it are totally irrelevant). The fact that you can make a statement
like this from a position of total ignorance when I cite a specific example is
a clear example of not following basic scientific principles. You can be
insulted all you like but that is not what a good scientist would do on a good
day -- it is simply lazy and bad science.
>> As often occurs, there may be rules that tell you how to handle 80% of cases
>> (or whatever), but then the remainder of the cases are harder and require
>> actual judgment.
Is it that the rules don't have 100% coverage or is that it isn't always clear
how to appropriately apply the rules and that is where the questions come in?
There is a huge difference between the two cases -- and your statement "no one
knows what the rules are" argues for the former not the latter. I'd be more
than willing to accept the latter -- but the former is an embarrassment. Do
you really mean to contend the former?
>> It is possible I inaccurately remembered an anecdote from Feynman's book,
>> but that's irrelevant to my point.
No, you accurately remembered the anecdote. As I recall, Feynman was
expressing frustration at the slowness of the process -- particularly because
no one would consider his hypothesis enough to perform the experiments
necessary to determine whether the point was an outlier or not. Not performing
the experiment was an unfortunate choice of trade-offs (since I'm sure that
they were doing something else that they deemed more likely to produce
worthwhile results) but accepting his theory without first proving that the
outlier was indeed an outlier (regardless of his "intelligence") would have
been far worse and directly contrary to the scientific method.
>>>> Using that story as an example shows that you don't understand how to
>>>> properly run a scientific evaluative process.
>> Wow, that is quite an insult. So you're calling me an incompetent in my
>> profession now.
It depends. Are you going to continue promoting something as inexcusable as
saying that theory should trump data (because of the source of the theory)? I
was quite clear that I was criticizing a very specific action. Are you going
to continue to defend that improper action?
And why don't we keep this on the level of scientific debate rather than
arguing insults and vehemence and confidence? That's not particularly good
science either.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Sorry Mark, but I'm not going to accept your opinion on this just because you
express it with vehemence and confidence.
I didn't argue much previously when you told me I didn't understand
engineering ... because, although I've worked with a lot of engineers, I
haven't been one.
But, I grew up around scientists, I've trained scientists, and I am currently
(among other things) working as a scientist.
It is really not true that there is a set of simple rules adequate to tell
people how to evaluate scientific results effectively. As often occurs, there
may be rules that tell you how to handle 80% of cases (or whatever), but then
the remainder of the cases are harder and require actual judgment.
This is, by the way, the case with essentially every complex human process
that people have sought to cover via "expert rules." The rules cover many
cases ... but as one seeks to extend them to cover all relevant cases, one
winds up adding more and more and more specialized rules...
It is possible I inaccurately remembered an anecdote from Feynman's book, but
that's irrelevant to my point.
***
Using that story as an example shows that you don't understand how to
properly run a scientific evaluative process.
***
Wow, that is quite an insult. So you're calling me an incompetent in my
profession now.
I don't have particularly "thin skin", but I have to say that I'm getting
really tired of being attacked and insulted on this email list.
-- Ben G
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Whether a stupid person can do good scientific evaluation "if taught the
rules" is a badly-formed question, because no one knows what the rules are.
They are learned via experience just as much as by explicit teaching
Wow! I'm sorry but that is a very scary, incorrect opinion. There's a
really good book called "The Game of Science" by McCain and Segal that clearly
explains all of the rules. I'll get you a copy.
I understand that most "scientists" aren't trained properly -- but that is
no reason to continue the problem by claiming that they can't be trained
properly.
You make my point with your explanation of your example of biology
referees. And the Feynman example, if it is the story that I've heard before,
was actually an example of good science in action because the outlier was
eventually overruled AFTER ENOUGH GOOD DATA WAS COLLECTED to prove that the
outlier was truly an outlier and not just a mere inconvenience to someone's
theory. Feynman's exceptional intelligence allowed him to discover a
possibility that might have been correct if the point was an outlier, but good
scientific evaluation relies on data, data, and more data. Using that story as
an example shows that you don't understand how to properly run a scientific
evaluative process.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Whether a stupid person can do good scientific evaluation "if taught the
rules" is a badly-formed question, because no one knows what the rules are.
They are learned via experience just as much as by explicit teaching
Furthermore, as anyone who has submitted a lot of science papers to
journals knows, even smart scientists can be horrendously bad at scientific
evaluation. I've had some really good bioscience papers rejected from
journals, by presumably intelligent referees, for extremely bad reasons (and
these papers were eventually published in good journals).
Evaluating research is not much easier than doing it. When is someone's
supposed test of statistical validity really the right test? Too many biology
referees just look for the magic number of p<.05 rather than understanding what
test actually underlies that number, because they don't know the math or don't
know how to connect the math to the experiment in a contextually appropriate
way.
As another example: When should a data point be considered an outlier
(meaning: probably due to equipment error or some other quirk) rather than a
genuine part of the data? Tricky. I recall Feynman noting that he was held
back in making a breakthrough discovery for some time, because of an outlier on
someone else's published data table, which turned out to be spurious but had
been accepted as valid by the community. In this case, Feyman's exceptional
intelligence allowed him to carry out scientific evaluation more effectively
than other, intelligent but less-so-than-him, had done...
-- Ben G
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, I should have drawn a distinction . . . . there is a major
difference between performing discovery as a scientist and evaluating data as a
scientist. I was referring to the latter (which is similar to understanding
Einstein) as opposed to the former (which is being Einstein). You clearly are
referring to the creative act of discovery (Programming is also a discovery
operation).
So let me rephrase my statement -- Can a stupid person do good
scientific evaluation if taught the rules and willing to abide by them? Why or
why not?
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Mark,
It is not the case that I have merely lectured rather than taught.
I've lectured (math, CS, psychology and futurology) at university, it's true
... but I've also done extensive one-on-one math tutoring with students at
various levels ... and I've also taught small groups of kids aged 7-12,
hands-on (math & programming), and I've taught retirees various skills (mostly
computer related).
Why can't a stupid person do good science? Doing science in reality
seems to require a whole bunch of implicit, hard-to-verbalize knowledge that
stupid people just don't seem to be capable of learning. A stupid person can
possibly be trained to be a good lab assistant, in some areas of science but
not others (it depends on how flaky and how complex the lab technology involved
is in that area). But, being a scientist involves a lot of judgment, a lot of
heuristic, uncertain reasoning drawing on a wide variety of knowledge.
Could a stupid person learn to be a good scientist given, say, a
thousand years of training? Maybe. But I doubt it, because by the time they
had moved on to learning the second half of what they need to know, they would
have already forgotten the first half ;-p
You work in software engineering -- do you think a stupid person
could be trained to be a really good programmer? Again, I very much doubt it
... though they could be (and increasingly are ;-p) trained to do routine
programming tasks.
Inevitably, in either of these cases, the person will encounter some
situation not directly covered in their training, and will need to
intelligently analogize to their experience, and will fail at this because they
are not very intelligent...
-- Ben G
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Funny, Ben.
So . . . . could you clearly state why science can't be done by
anyone willing to simply follow the recipe?
Is it really anything other than the fact that they are stopped by
their unconscious beliefs and biases? If so, what?
Instead of a snide comment, defend your opinion with facts,
explanations, and examples of what it really is.
I can give you all sorts of examples where someone is capable of
doing something "by the numbers" until they are told that they can't.
What do you believe is so difficult about science other than
overcoming the sub/unconscious?
Your statement is obviously spoken by someone who has lectured as
opposed to taught.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
>>>
*Any* human who can understand language beyond a certain point
(say, that of
a slightly sub-average human IQ) can easily be taught to be a
good scientist
if they are willing to play along. Science is a rote process
that can be
learned and executed by anyone -- as long as their beliefs and
biases don't
get in the way.
<<
This is obviously spoken by someone who has never been a
professional teacher ;-p
ben g
------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
--------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be
first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first
overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first
overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
