Hacker News Reader

Comment by sadness2 | Hacker News Reader

Something working with neural networks has helped me to come to terms with is that we are probabilistic creatures, and even things we call facts are things we simply feel very confident about. Science itself is a process of increasing confidence in an outcome, not an exercise in certainty.

View on HN

The fact that an artificial neural network (which very roughly mimics human brain) is probabilistic in nature does not have any implication for Science as a whole.

Science can make predictions that are extremely accurate (think ten significant digits) and the uncertainty on that prediction (i.e. the eleventh significant digit) does not have anything to do with neural networks or us being "probabilistic creatures", whatever that means.

Even in your ideal experimental scenario, the laws of probability state that before the 10,000,000,000th such study is completed, we will see a case where the findings turn out to be incorrect.

We learn by experience, and we build weightings, and both our gut reactions and careful conclusions are simply the ones which win the confidence ratings. Logic may be an exception by virtue of it's mathematical nature, but any facts involved are not, and we fall back on judgement calls most of the time even when we think we're being logical.

> Even in your ideal experimental scenario, the laws of probability state that before the 10,000,000,000th such study is completed, we will see a case where the findings turn out to be incorrect.

And yet by means of statistics one can model the errors, and obtain an experimental measurement with 10 significant digits.

And, guess what, it agrees with the theory! Ten. Significant. Digits.

> Logic may be an exception by virtue of it's mathematical nature, but any facts involved are not, and we fall back on judgement calls most of the time even when we think we're being logical.

That's not how Science works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com