Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think you got the point. A lot of people don't seem to realize that ML might be great for finding patterns but will never yield scientific knowledge in the sense of cause-reaction sense.

Unfortunately everyone thinks he can use it for finding "new stuff" and so in my field they "predict material properties", etc. using ML fed with data where every review about the physics tells you that the algorithms they use for extracting that data are domain-specific and might yield results different on the order of magnitudes. But nobody cares; take some SW off the net, which claims to be able to extract what you want, run it, train your ML, publish your results.



What method would you use to yield scientific knowledge in the sense of cause-reaction? Many important processes really do have large numbers of causal factors that interact non-linearly. If we want to try to learn about that, some statistical method that deals with many parameters will be needed. Such models are generally referred to as "Machine Learning". Their generalisation or causal inference properties are particular to each implementation and identification strategy, but you can't just say "ML will never yield scientific knowledge".


A tool called Mathematics which can exactly describe this interactions. And if those processes have a lot of variables, a ML-model might certainly be useful, but it will never be generally applicable! This probably also contributes to "scientific knowledge" but it's not the same as scientific facts (or whatever you call universally transferable results).


You're building your mathematical model based on the knowledge you have, which is from the data you have, and there is still the same risk that your theory won't generalize to new observations.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: