TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

To Know, but Not Understand: David Weinberger on Science and Big Data (2012)

60 点作者 reedwolf将近 5 年前

4 条评论

redelbee将近 5 年前
At what point do we shift our investment in time and energy from building models like those mentioned in the article to the bigger picture? Maybe it’s just my perception but it doesn’t seem like we have very many people thinking deeply about what models we should build and to what ends. Instead we are just building the models and hoping we can put them to good use afterwards.<p>For example, what’s the end game for the cellular signaling modeling outlined in the article? It seems like the result isn’t valuable in and of itself, and it can’t be much more than that because the scientist “doesn’t understand it, and doesn’t think any person could.” So we now have an equation that expresses constants within a cell and that’s it. We don’t understand it and we can’t put it to good use. So was that time and effort well spent? Do we just put this work in a drawer so we can pull it out if it could be useful at some point in the future? Is that what we’re doing with all the similar advances in modeling?<p>There’s nothing wrong with knowledge for knowledge’s sake, but I think we’ve way over indexed on the tools and predictions side of the system. If we continue to constantly create new tools&#x2F;models&#x2F;predictions we might find a use for them by chance. It just seems more efficient to focus on what outcomes we really want and then put the models to work in pursuit of those outcomes. Perhaps we focused more on the outcomes in the past because we didn’t have the technological horsepower to constantly churn out new models.<p>Maybe I’m wrong and there are people working on the big picture. Are there modern day philosophers doing this work? Do they make up a significant portion of the work being done? If not, why?
评论 #24187838 未加载
评论 #24187821 未加载
评论 #24192060 未加载
评论 #24188988 未加载
trabant00将近 5 年前
From my point of view there are 2 possible ways:<p>- we simply acknowledge we don&#x27;t understand something enough and keep looking into it until we do. I mean everything we now understand (at an acceptable level by our standards) has gone through an intermediary phase - see alchemy for example.<p>- we declare some things (prematurely?) as forever escaping our grasp and accept we may never have a simple model of them.<p>What bothers me is the 3rd way:<p>- we don&#x27;t know why but the computer model gave this result so let&#x27;s go ahead with putting it into production. We make money, the user&#x2F;consumer may have a nice experience or die, fingers crossed.
评论 #24188588 未加载
reedwolf将近 5 年前
Bottom line:<p>&quot;With the new database-based science, there is often no moment when the complex becomes simple enough for us to understand it. The model does not reduce to an equation that lets us then throw away the model. You have to run the simulation to see what emerges. For example, a computer model of the movement of people within a confined space who are fleeing from a threat--they are in a panic--shows that putting a column about one meter in front of an exit door, slightly to either side, actually increases the flow of people out the door. Why? There may be a theory or it may simply be an emergent property. We can climb the ladder of complexity from party games to humans with the single intent of getting outside of a burning building, to phenomena with many more people with much more diverse and changing motivations, such as markets. We can model these and perhaps know how they work without understanding them. They are so complex that only our artificial brains can manage the amount of data and the number of interactions involved.&quot;
评论 #24186523 未加载
andrewla将近 5 年前
Completely off topic -- one of my favorite stories from a friend at Google was that they saw someone writing what looked like a giant AWK script, and they went over to the guy and told them &quot;look over at that desk, that&#x27;s Brian Kernighan, the &#x27;K&#x27; in AWK&quot; only to be met with a scornful &quot;I&#x27;m the W&quot; from Weinberger.