Dear Plamen,
I fully agree with your assessment of the downside of dataism. The necessary 
counterbalance, though, cannot in my opinion come through using binary 
operators (in the sense of Burgin/Brenner) such as capital and currency, where 
the movement of ideas is involved. There is an implied reduction of their 
properties which could vitiate your project. Transaction is in principle a good 
word, but it, also, must not be reduced to its lowest common economic 
The problem of the entire concept of "data-driven" research can be illustrated 
by referring to almost any recent copy of SCIENCE, which I am sure you all do 
from time to time. There are articles in my original field, chemistry, which 
describe incredibly complex multiply-sequenced reactions which were 
unimaginable when I was in university. They cannot be followed or their 
products exploited without the latest concepts in data handling. But there is a 
usually a little phrase "in fine print" to the effect that the system works 
"provided the reactions lend themselves to sequencing". As long as there is 
possibility of studying the chemistry of some molecular systems, literally, as 
individuals, it will be hypotheses about their reality that drive the research, 
not the data. 
Best wishes,
----Message d'origine----
De :
Date : 10/03/2018 - 16:40 (PST)
À :
Cc :
Objet : Re: [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research 
and the beginning of data-correlation-driven research?
Dear Alberto, Pedro, and FIS Colleagues,
I think you got the message. All in all, an effort to organize 
scientific/intellectual potential in this forum and others of that kind into a 
kind of currency of a much higher value than money and other material and 
virtual resources on Earth deserves to be made. For me, the term "blockchain" 
is a bad word match for what this vision may really become in future.  [Maybe 
this is because of my past history from Eastern Europe, which made me feel 
"blocked" and "chained" for a long time of my life.] I would rather prefer a 
term that means unblocking and unchaining instead. But it should be certainly 
one thing: trusted information of a high value like patents, articles, 
discoveries, and discussions like those we have here can be ranked on, 
especially in the era of "fake news" and spam surrounding us. What we are 
talking about is not new. It only has a new "fashion" name. We can regard it as 
an extension of the internet, beyond the semantic one, an intelligent and 
active, but also trusted and self-organized network of humans, animals, plants, 
and technical devices, a welcome tool extending our senses to feel an entire 
ecosystem of evolving things. 
I have not read an article discussing "blockchain" in the above sense, maybe 
because like most phenomena in "dataism"  the term is currently only 
unilaterally exploited by the majority, held under the umbrella of finances, 
trade, insurances, contracts, encryption, etc. trivial "high-impact" fields, 
similarly to the unilateral understanding of AI, machine learning, and even 
quantum computing. They all are still understood (by the majority of our 
contemporaries) as means to maintain the status quo of science, economy, and 
society. But they can be also used to change the paradigm. If we stay in the 
loop accepting data-driven hypothesis and machine-generated theory only because 
we have sunk in the self-created ocean of data, this would mean to betray human 
mind at the end. On the other hand, we could use all these tools to empower and 
perpetuate human mind activities like those in this forum. Therefore, I wish to 
ask you if you would eventually support a future experiment for creating a 
"human mind capital" currency based on the trustfulness of the idea 
transactions in this forum. I think we can get even funding for this 
All the best.
___ ___ ___
Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov | |
2017 Towards a First Implementation of the WLIMES Approach in Living System 
Studies Advancing the Diagnostics and Therapy in Personalized Medicine
2017 JPBMB Focused Issue on Integral Biomathics: The Necessary Conjunction of 
Western and Eastern Thought Traditions for Exploring the Nature of Mind and 
Life  *
* free promotional access to all focused issue articles until June 20th 2018 
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Alberto J. Schuhmacher 
<> wrote:
Dear Plamen, Pedro and Collegues,
I am enjoying a lot this forum. 
I absolutely foresee Scientific Blockchain as a continuously growing list of 
scientific records and contributions (blocks) linked and secured using 
cryptography, somehow a kind of peer reviewed process. Would you be able to 
publish it in a journal based on their scientific value?
Dataist-machines won chess players but still are learning Science, they are 
completing their “Bachelor”. Their use for biomedical applications is growing 
everyday. For example, their accuracy for in biomedical imaging diagnosis will 
be similar to humans soon. For other applications, such as genetic 
predisposition and health prediction/prognosis the conversion to a fanatic 
dataism may abuse of “predictivity” and forget the relevance of the 
organism-environment. It will take some time for machines to complete their 
“Philosophical Doctorate”. Technology could be ready soon for data driven 
hypothesis but our knowledge of fundamental aspects of life are still weak.
All the best,
El 10-03-2018 21:05, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ escribió:
Dear Plamen and Colleagues,
If it can be feasible, I would very much welcome what you propose. Yes, it 
would be great developing a general articulation amongst all our exchanges. 
Roughly, I feel that a fundamental nucleous of neatly conceptualized 
information is still evading us, but outside that nucleous, and somehow 
emanating from it, there are different branches and sub-branches in quite 
different elaboration degrees and massively crisscrossing and intermingling 
their contents. A six-pointed star, for instance, radiating from its inner 
fusion the computational, physical, biological, neuronal, social, and economic. 
The six big branches in perfect periferic colussion and confusion. Could a 
blockchain, along its full develpment in time, represent a fundamental 
cartography of the originating fusion nucleous? 
About dataism enchantment, well, too many times we have been said "look, 
finally this is the great, definitive scientific approach"--behaviorism, 
artificial intelleigence, artifficial catastrophe & complexity theory, and so 
on. Let us wait and see. Welcome in the extent to which it really responds to 
unanswered questions. And let us be aware of the technocratic lore it seems to 
This was my second cent for the week.
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 10:30:01 +0100 "Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov" wrote:
These are wise words, Pedro.
What I was meaning with my previous posting on FIS was that there is a 
foundational emerging technology - blockchain - that could give us, scientists 
organized in fora like FIS, IB, IS4IS etc. to become a valuable currency of the 
future. I am speaking not about finances or resources like petrol, gold, water, 
etc. What we are doing all the time with the exchange of ideas online are in 
fact transactions, often with huge potential. Why do not try to elevate them to 
the level that they deserve? 
I am not sure if the FIS forum members can follow me. Can you?
All the best.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:15 PM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <> wrote:
Dear Alberto,
Many thanks for the kickoff text. I will try to produce a couple of direct 
You have reminded me of the early 70's, when I first approached science. A few 
computers had made their entrance in the university halls. During those years, 
and for some decades to come, a new mantra was to be ensconced: modeling, 
simulations. Thanks to computers, we had a fascinating new tool; a mathematical 
machine that was opening a new window to the world of science, equivalent to 
the telescope or the microscope in the scientific revolution. Now, almost 50 
years later, after having provoked their own "information revolution" it seems 
that computers are more than a new tool. Dataism coupled with artificial 
intelligence, deep learning and the other techniques, have taken them to the 
command post, so that they are becoming direct "agents" of the scientific 
progress. And this is strange. They have already defeated masters of chess, of 
go and of other contests... are they going to defeat scientists too? Are they 
the "necessary" new lords of all quarters of techno-social complexity?
You have depicted very cogently the new panorama of biomedical research, 
probably the mainstream, and I wonder whether this is the most interesting 
direction of advancement. In some sense, yes (or no!), as it is where big 
biomed companies, technological firms, and management establishment are 
pointing at. It is easy to complain that they are leaving aside the integrative 
vision, the meaningful synthesis that facilitate our comprehension, the "soul" 
in the machine... But we have been complaining in this way at least during the 
last two decades. So I really do not know. Fashions in science come and go: 
maybe all of this is a temporary illusion. Or a taste of the science of the 
In any case, it was nice hearing from a biomedical researcher in the wet lab.
Best wishes--Pedro
On Tue, 06 Mar 2018 21:23:01 +0100 "Alberto J. Schuhmacher" wrote:
Dear FIS Colleagues,
I very much appreciate this opportunity to discuss with all of you.
My mentors and science teachers taught me that Science had a method, rules and 
procedures that should be followed and pursued rigorously and with 
perseverance. The scientific research needed to be preceded by one or several 
hypotheses that should be subjected to validation or refutation through 
experiments designed and carried out in a laboratory. The Oxford Dictionaries 
Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has 
characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic 
observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and 
modification of hypotheses". Experiments are a procedure designed to test 
hypotheses. Experiments are an important tool of the scientific method.
In our case, molecular, personalized and precision medicine aims to anticipate 
the future development of diseases in a specific individual through molecular 
markers registered in the genome, variome, metagenome, metabolome or in any of 
the multiple "omes" that make up the present "omics" language of current 
The possibilities of applying these methodologies to the prevention and 
treatment of diseases have increased exponentially with the rise of a new 
religion, Dataism, whose foundations are inspired by scientific agnosticism, a 
way of thinking that seems classical but applied to research, it hides a 
profound revolution.
Dataism arises from the recent human desire to collect and analyze data, data 
and more data, data of everything and data for everything-from the most banal 
social issues to those that decide the rhythms of life and death. "Information 
flow" is one the "supreme values" of this religion. The next floods will be of 
data as we can see just looking at any electronic window.
The recent development of gigantic clinical and biological databases, and the 
concomitant progress of the computational capacity to handle and analyze these 
growing tides of information represent the best substrate for the progress of 
Dataism, which in turn has managed to provide a solid content material to an 
always-evanescent scientific agnosticism.
On many occasions the establishment of correlative observations seems to be 
sufficient to infer about the relevance of a certain factor in the development 
of some human pathologies. It seems that we are heading towards a path in which 
research, instead of being driven by hypotheses confirmed experimentally, in 
the near future experimental hypotheses themselves will arise from the 
observation of data of previously performed experiments. Are we facing the end 
of the wet lab? Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research (and 
the beginning of data-correlation-driven research)?
Deep learning is based on learning data representations, as opposed to 
task-specific algorithms. Learning can be supervised, semi-supervised or 
unsupervised. Deep learning models are loosely related to information 
processing and communication patterns in a biological nervous system, such as 
neural coding that attempts to define a relationship between various stimuli 
and associated neuronal responses in the brain. Deep learning architectures 
such as deep neural networks, deep belief networks and recurrent neural 
networks have been applied to fields including computer vision, audio 
recognition, speech recognition, machine translation, natural language 
processing, social network filtering, bioinformatics and drug design, where 
they have produced results comparable to and in some cases superior to human 
experts. Will be data-correlation-driven research the new scientific method for 
unsupervised deep learning machines? Will computers became fundamentalists of 
Best regards,
 Alberto J. Schuhmacher, PhD.
 Head, Molecular Oncology Group
 Aragon Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón)
 Biomedical Research Center of Aragon (CIBA)
 Avda. Juan Bosco 13, 50009 Zaragoza (Spain) br> email:
 Phone: (+34) 637939901
 Fis mailing list
 Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to