What is Digg?266 Comments
- Terr01, on 06/25/2008, -6/+145If I could sum up this article in two words... Intellectual masturbation. And in this case worse than most magazines' "From The Editor" columns.
Forget the sweeping and grandiose pronouncements about "the scientific method" and "the petabyte age".
The core of the article is that we've got new tools to do statistical analysis on things and to identify correlation and anomalies.
Whoop-dee-doo. - Varz, on 06/25/2008, -5/+94This is an interesting new method but it isn't a replacement for theory, it's really just a stepping stone to develop better theories and to acquire more data (correlations can be seen as data). This method outlines the correlations but at the end of the day science is about understanding the world, not about long meaningless formulas which happen to model some process.
The objectives of science and companies like Google are different, Google is looking for profits so the only thing that matters are the numbers, not why the numbers exist. - sgiffy, on 06/25/2008, -2/+65A few hundred years ago it become impossible for one person to learn most of what there was to learn. People like da Vinci, who were experts in many many fields, became impossible. Now perhaps we are approaching a point where not even our entire society can know what there is to know. Instead our knowledge will be held by our machines, and our skill will be in using them.
- Terr01, on 06/26/2008, -0/+38The author refers to "models" and in fact only means models that explain causality. This is a potential point of equivocation, since they are in fact only one subset of model. There's also skimpier correlational/mathematical models.
So when he says that Google doesn't need models, he's dead wrong. They use them heavily. The author handwaves them away as "applied mathematics".
For example, consider Google's pagerank algorithm. It attempts to model (however sketchily and statistically) the behavior of people browsing the web! They follow links coming in, then follow links going out... That's a model, people.
Sure, the pagerank algorithm doesn't explain the "why", but neither does the theory of gravity explain "why" the planets first got into their elliptical orbits.
And another thing: Google doesn't try to figure out "What makes a good page", just "what indicates a good page".
Now, the author would have you believe it's because the second goal is easier, and as far as that goes he's right... but he totally ignores the fact that *models to solve each problem provide different rewards*. Google doesn't take the latter approach because we're on the cusp of some magical new age, they take it because it provides the *kind* of answers they can use. Things would change radically if Google was a group of consultants for designing fresh corporate presences on the web, for whom the second approach would only provide an intriguing starting point.
Several other people have made some very nice responses on Wired's blog in the link. - shaun944, on 06/26/2008, -0/+38yeah this is garbage about the scientific model being thrown out. Science isn't just about determining the statistics of something happening, its understanding the why.
simply throwing a bunch of data into the ether and getting back a statistical probability doesn't tell you why it's most likely, nor does it mean that the high probability is actually correct.
Google is a lot of things, but a replacement for the scientific method it is not. - Chainheart, on 06/26/2008, -3/+39Asinine rubbish; data by itself is just ***** jumbled together, but theories allow us to make sense of that data
- ahawks, on 06/26/2008, -0/+34Inaccurate, misleading title.
The article is about advertising and social/human studies because the Internet is giving us vast amounts of data to study, so advertisers and such don't have to go on theories and models, they can just use statistics based on the data.
But to say essentially a large database can replace the Scientific Method, the tool set that explains gravity, astrophysics, quantum particles, magnetics, electricity, optics, light, and everything else in the physical world.... well that's just asinine. - scooterbaga, on 06/25/2008, -2/+27You just blew my mind...
- fsuarez2005, on 06/26/2008, -0/+25Hypothesis: previous models you want to test. you don't just "make up" models in your head.
Gathering mass amounts of data. It's called observation.
After you have data, what do you do? Create a model. Same as adding context to data.
Science isn't going anywhere.
What Google did is just create the new 'telescope'. - sk11, on 06/25/2008, -0/+24Perhaps, one day, we may use machines to enhance and expand our minds. Interfacing our brains with computers directly would be a spectacular step forward, freeing us from certain limitations. We may then simply download large chunks of information straight into our conscious mind.
- WilCon, on 06/26/2008, -0/+24This article is amusing. The person obviously doesn't know the scientific method. If we are to presume this article is correct and all we do is collect massive amounts of data, how do we know what data to collect? are we gonna manipulate any variables? uhh, we're just collecting data i guess not. therefore the data is useless. move on my friends, nothing being done here other than fancy correlations where we'll find out painting your nails increases your life expectancy by 10 years! woohoo! get to painting men, science has enter the petabyte era!
- wrathchilde, on 06/26/2008, -0/+23Integrity in science is based on the premise that "all models are wrong" AND "all data is inaccurate". That is why all conclusions are qualified with "to the best of our understanding" or "the evidence suggests", which of course opens up the counter "well, I believe differently" counter.
One of my best professors proclaimed that if you wanted to find truth, science was the wrong business for you. Those who would proclaim absolute truth do not rely on evidence. - Terr01, on 06/25/2008, -1/+23That's hardly new. We were inferring models that weren't intuitive back when people were wondering why certain chemicals blew up when mixed together.
Heck, intuition is a huge part of any inductive inference. - relic180, on 06/25/2008, -0/+21Kinda like, "I know Kung Fu".
- Terr01, on 06/26/2008, -0/+14You've missed my point. Intuition is *IS* inference (sometimes deduction) on an unconscious level.
If someone takes an umbrella with them, I can *infer* that...
(A) they expect a fair probability of using it
(B) that it's intended use is to deflect liquid
(C) that the main reason they would be wet is rain
(D) that therefore they suspect it might rain
We only call that "intuition" because we don't analyze our thought process formally and consciously. It's still the same underlying behavior. - scooterbaga, on 06/26/2008, -0/+13whoa
- bradleyland, on 06/26/2008, -0/+11You really have no idea what you're on about, do you?
- inactive, on 06/26/2008, -2/+12God is whats left of an older era.
- Harabeck, on 06/26/2008, -1/+11You owe me a new BS detector.
- Terr01, on 06/26/2008, -1/+11Your post boils down to a dressed-up version of: "Nuh Uhhh!"
Not quite sure where to go with that. - ConfusedCartman, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9"God is real."
Do me a favor and show me proof that he exists. While you're at it, show me failed attempts, by believers, to disprove God's existence. If those two things exist, I will believe in God. Until then, science and logic is doing pretty well for me. - thebellmaster1x, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9No, wonderbriefs. You do not understand. The point of a proof is to show that something EXISTS. You have to prove to US that a god exists, which goes against what our own senses tell us. That NO god exists is what agrees with our senses and does not need to be proven.
- loki49152, on 06/26/2008, -1/+10Don't worry. Neither does the author.
- Varz, on 06/25/2008, -0/+8Which is what I said, it's a stepping stone to developing better theories, it offers data in the form of correlations. Scientists aren't just going to leave correlative data as just that, they're going to use that data to develop theories just like in normal scientific method.
You could just include the correlative data as data in the initial step of scientific method:
1) Obtain data or observe phenomena.
2) Theorize about why phenomena occurs.
3) If theory works keep it, if it doesn't go to step 2.
This is just a new way of gathering data which looks to be extremely usefull for unintuitive processes. - wynja, on 06/25/2008, -1/+9What's new is the vast amount of information that we have to infer models from. That's what the article is talking about. With the amount of data available to us today, we will be generating more and more of our theories from inference rather than intuition.
- thebellmaster1x, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8First off, if you want to ignore climate records and be a retard, go ahead. We'll just laugh at you while we view our regressions.
Secondly, get this through your skull: NOBODY CARES ABOUT AL GORE. He is not a ***** scientist, and he is not a ***** authority on anything scientific. CLIMATOLOGISTS have determined that global warming exists, not Al Gore. It does not matter a damn bit what Al Gore says. I haven't even seen his movie. Stop bringing him up, for Christ's sake. We don't think him a representative of science AT ALL. - bullcutter, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8"All models are wrong, but some are useful."
George Box, statistician of "Box-Whisker Plot" fame, a statistical plotting method co-developed with the famous Jimmy Whisker.
Nah, but seriously, buried for msaleem + wired.
The only reason somebody would say "the scientific method is obsolete" is if they didn't understand the scientific method. - inactive, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9Man, you sound more stupid every time you comment. Incredible.
- inactive, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8True enough, but i think the article was stretched out pretty far from what actually matters here. Notice how they say theory becomes obsolete.... Yeah, *****.
- Kingmichael, on 06/26/2008, -1/+8@JimmySpaza: Observational selection. For every Bible prophecy that has ever been fulfilled, there are probably many that haven't. There's a lot of ***** predicted in the Bible, so naturally some of it is going to end up coming true.
- ConfusedCartman, on 06/26/2008, -1/+8First of all, I will say a) I can't prove he doesn't exist, but b) you can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.
We have a church:
http://www.venganza.org/ - Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -2/+9Empirically speaking, God is nothing more than a possibility.
- inactive, on 06/26/2008, -6/+12God is a Hypothesis.
- elcapitanp, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7The bible also prophesied that Israel wouldn't form. Wow, the bible is right, it prophesied that Israel would form, and that it wouldn't! Look, it did! The bible is right!
- DiggDuggDugged, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7I saw this over on /. earlier and have been thinking about it most of the day. It is my considered opinion that Chris Anderson both doesn't understand what he's writing about and comes across as a douche shoved up Google's *****. Maybe having Google's vulvaptuous lips so tightly squeezed around him explains why he makes no sense but I think that Varz up above understands better than this tool. The data that Google (and others) are compiling and allowing us to search is a gold mine for scientific advancement but I fail to see how this will lead us to abandoning tried and true methods of investigation.
Anderson does bring up a few interesting points but I think they serve mostly to debunk his theory than prop it up. The example of Craig Venter was an excellent one. Merely having tons of data doesn't provide insight into your observations. You must distill the data, pull out trends, and construct models. I just don't see how having heaps of data about a species, but still being unable to provide some simple answers about it, is superior to conventional science (which can answer questions about the things it has discovered). - Triticum, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Chris Anderson must have a Jump to Conclusions mat.
- bipolarruledout, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6"The Petabyte Age is different because more is different. Kilobytes were stored on floppy disks. Megabytes were stored on hard disks. Terabytes were stored in disk arrays. Petabytes are stored in the cloud. "
I want my next machine to have at least 100 clouds.
/Typical wired tripe... who writes this stuff? - spriggig, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6So when did we finish digitizing ALL information and uploading it to the intertoobs? Did I miss the memo?
- relic180, on 06/26/2008, -2/+8The article is addressing the fact that our new technology is allowing the basic scientific method to advance, which it hasn't done in a long time. There's not much more that needs to be said... that's what's going on.
Do you really want me to type up a five or six paragraph rant for you? - wynja, on 06/25/2008, -3/+8Science may be about understanding the world but that's not the point. Current cutting edge theories are completely untestable because they require us to model reality in dimensions that we cannot stick probes into (i.e. the problem with String Theory).
The point of the article is that with the vast amount of data available today. We are able to infer models from the data that are not intuitive. - inactive, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5It's a big deal, but they are over-exaggerating what exactly the point is.
- ConfusedCartman, on 06/26/2008, -8/+13I don't understand the article at all.
- FlyingPhotog, on 06/26/2008, -4/+9Fap fap fap... Models are definitely useful... fap fap fap...
- 180andback, on 06/26/2008, -2/+7Dude.
- relic180, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6@Spaza
1) The bible has been "tampered" with.
http://nazirene.org/corruption.htm
That being said, it's PLENTY easy for people writing the n.t. to actually READ the o.t. and simply incorporate events to coincide with the predictions of what was already written. It's not rocket science, smart guy.
2) Wow, that site you source is complete garbage. They state that a) dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible... by the names Behemoth and Leviathon.. which somehow both DEFINITELY mean dinosaur. Did you notice that it says dinosaurs and men lived happily together as buddies? Yup, that agrees with science alright.
They also say b) there are 'totally a ***** of stars in the sky'. Yea, that agrees with science too. Good job there. And they cite a verse that says " The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;" as an example of how the bible is consistent with meteorology. Jesus christ (no pun intended) i guess I don't need to watch the evening weather anymore. Wind goes north and south, got it.
The point is, similarities between the bible and scientific findings are a HUUUUUUGE stretch at absolute best, but typically just wrong. Vague and flowery language allow a lot of room to interpret after the fact. That's not scientific evidence of a damn thing.
3) Your third claim is actually just wrong. You simply say "could not have resulted" but this is only bias speaking. You have no evidence that shows this is true. And in fact there has been much scientific progress in the discovery of how DNA came to be without the assistance of a "higher power".
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/06111 ...
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/DNAPers ... (start at page 14) - placemat, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Awesome, knowledge without any understanding of whats going on.
- Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Models are inaccurate by the very fact that they're models. A model is a simplification of reality, and therefore by necessity leaves things out. Models and methods can still be useful, so long as you understand that they're only tools and not reality.
Also the scientific certainty of Newton died about 90 years ago. This isn't exactly news. - relic180, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6"god" is a waste of cognitive resources.
- Azerael, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5I have a hard time believing you're actually a Christian, and I'm an atheist...
- Varz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5It was mainly convoluted crap. I think what the author was trying to say was Google has some tools for analysing massives amounts of data and identifying correlations and these tools may be usefull for scientists in attaining correlative data, which of course can be used to create better/new theories.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 272 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is