On Dec 28, 8:29 am, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>Actually we've used theories that were elegant and predictive but we didn't
>understand for a long time - it's called engineering.
Yes indeed! Remember my thread challenging Bayesian Induction as the
basis for science? This is strong real-world evidence that Bayesian
Induction is limited , look at what they say:
An ongoing challenge is the tendency of Eureqa to return equations
that fit data, but refer to variables that are not yet understood.
Lipson likened this to what would happen if time-traveling scientists
presented the laws of energy conservation to medieval mathematicians.
“Algebra was known. You could plug in the variable, and it would work.
But the concept of energy wasn’t there. They didn’t have the
vocabulary to understand it,” he said. “We’ve seen this in the lab.
Eureqa finds a new relationship. It’s predictive, it’s elegant, it has
to be true. But we have no idea what it means.”
Even perfect prediction is not science. I've downloaded the app and
it performs poweful general purpose regression (fitting any spread-
sheet data to equations). This is exactly what an ideal Bayesian
reasoner does (devises equations making predictions). But let me
empasize the last thing they said again:
"It’s predictive, it’s elegant, it has to be true. But we have no idea
what it means."
Mere prediction (Bayesian Induction) alone is not science. Without a
set of concepts with a clear meaning, mere prediction is no better
than a black box outputting correct outcomes. Real science also
requires Categorization (explanations based on concepts) not just
Beware of cranks on other blogs and mailing lists claiming that
Bayesian Induction is the foundation of science!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at