I want to be clear that I would phrase that as “based on consensus,” and not as bullshit. I have seen so many doomed/failed projects/models that have come up because people say “well, it’s math, so it has to be right.”
Sorry if I'm missing your point?
Your model can be completely internally consistent and allow you to study things in the context of your assumptions perfectly, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have critical flaws that disqualify any learning about the system you’ve modeled.
The lack of understanding about what implications a representational choice have for the kinds of relationships a mathematical model can describe, and the lack of understanding concerning what are and aren’t critical domain components to model that’s difficult.
People often forget that there are two translation steps that have to take place. Domain -> Math -> Domain. That second one is too often implicit or assumed to follow, especially in ML.
Mathiness is a term coined by Nobel prize winner economist Paul Romer to label a specific misuse of mathematics in economic analyses. An author committed to the norms of science should use mathematical reasoning to clarify their analyses. By contrast, "mathiness" is not intended to clarify, but instead to mislead. According to Romer, some researchers use unrealistic assumptions and strained interpretations of their results in order to push an ideological agenda, and use a smokescreen of fancy mathematics to disguise their intentions.
A ethicist will never be caught using real inputs at all, precise or not.
A Psychologist will tell you 86% of people taking treatment X recovered. But miss out that 85.8% of people on placebo also recovered. Those numbers will be from a study of 10 people.
Also, science doesn’t really prove things true. It can prove things likely. And it’s really good at showing what is not true. I think in general humanities fail to address falsifiable things. This is why we have a reproducibility problem and why it’s mainly bullshit.
I didn't say Humanities were worthless. I just said there are no provable results there. "Is X ethical?" - no one can prove it but we will discuss it as long as someone will pay us to. Since there are no firm truths, anyone can get a degree (or more) without actually gaining the skills you refer to. In fact actually gaining the skills you allude to makes someone LESS likely to get funded or famous. It is extremists filled with certainty who rule these subjects...
that's bullshit. Classic liar's paradox and the solution is that sentence is ungrammatical in a strong sense of universal grammar ... which I can't prove, and I'm not philosopher enough to concern myself with lists of formal fallacies to make up for it
Remember, not an opinion or an argument, a cold hard, proof no one can argue with.
People who don't need guidelines gain nothing from them. People who need them won't sign up to them. Meanwhile I have to fill in a form and have a 2h meeting before I can shine a laser on an (already dead, commercially available) butterfly's wing?!
'M' is also largely bullshit. Worse, it's got immediate consequences.