Is the computer relied upon too much in scientific research?

[Philosophy Explorer]

If so, what can be done about it?:

http://qz.com/548730/computers-are-maki ... cientists/

PhilX

[kriswest]

After fully reading the article it seems as if the scientists are fixing the problems.

[Dalek Prime]

Software models are only as good as the parameters fed to it.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Software models are only as good as the parameters fed to it.

GIGO

PhilX

[Dalek Prime]

Pretty much, though it doesn't even need to be garbage, if you don't consider all variables. In which case you'll still get a reasonable answer, but not what you really needed.

[kriswest]

Did you all read the same article I did? Garbage in garbage out does not apply at all.

[Dalek Prime]

Did you all read the same article I did? Garbage in garbage out does not apply at all.

No, I did not. I'm not obliged to follow links or comment directly on them.

Anyhoo....

[Greta]

The problem is just complexity. As the body of knowledge rapidly builds researchers have ever more variables to consider. They construct models and simulations that must be updated as new data appears. Complexity is obviously a necessary evil. Maybe the bigger issue is not computers in themselves but the fact that quantum computing isn't yet functional to help handle all this data?

[Obvious Leo]

Maybe the bigger issue is not computers in themselves but the fact that quantum computing isn't yet functional to help handle all this data?

The problem runs a bit deeper than that, Greta, although faster computation is always better than slower. The real problem is that computers do not analyse data in an impartial theoretical vacuum. A computer can only execute a programme designed by a human being which means it can only analyse data in accordance with the the theoretical framework which underpins the software.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe"......Albert Einstein

[kriswest]

Did you all read the same article I did? Garbage in garbage out does not apply at all.

No, I did not. I'm not obliged to follow links or comment directly on them.

Anyhoo....

Aaaah okey dokey

[Greta]

Maybe the bigger issue is not computers in themselves but the fact that quantum computing isn't yet functional to help handle all this data?

The problem runs a bit deeper than that, Greta, although faster computation is always better than slower. The real problem is that computers do not analyse data in an impartial theoretical vacuum. A computer can only execute a programme designed by a human being which means it can only analyse data in accordance with the the theoretical framework which underpins the software.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe"......Albert Einstein

I saw this particular issue as one of organisation. Things got complicated and messy, which was affecting transparency so now they are standardising formats to improve accessibility.

Objectivity is always an issue in science, and one that it's continually tried to solve. But science can never be 100% impartial, which can be a good thing. Nazi Germany showed how science and medicine would operate without normal ethical bounds, for instance.

Observer effects though being a primate on planet Earth would seem insurmountable, hence the focus by science on practicalities. Some seem to think they we already accounted for major observer effects, or that outside of QM deeper observer effects are not important because models tailored to our primate perceptions are most useful.

[Obvious Leo]

Objectivity is always an issue in science,

Objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in science, Greta. Evidence is simply raw data and raw data contains no information. It is only after the data has been processed within the consciousness of the observer of it that it actually acquires a meaning and there is simply no "right" way or "wrong" way of doing this. There are good ways, bad ways and better ways of doing this but science is NOT a quest for some sort of mythical objective "Truth". Science is about "what works" and any model which science devises has a finite lifespan until it finds something "what works better". This is the most profound problem in modern physics because the spacetime paradigm has been adopted as canonical doctrine even though it DOESN'T fucking work.

Some seem to think they we already accounted for major observer effects,

Indeed many do think this but they couldn't be more wrong. Physics is the only science which regards the Cartesian space as physically real. No other science and certainly no philosophy has ever made this claim and the physicists would do well to wonder why. If space is regarded as merely an observer effect then every single paradox and metaphysical absurdity in the current models of physics simply vanish. Therefore it can't be wrong.