SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Sunday May 08 2016, @11:49PM
from the I-can't-solve-DiffEq-with-a-computer dept.
from the I-can't-solve-DiffEq-with-a-computer dept.
This just in from the front lines of the War on the Unusual:
University of Pennsylvania economics professor Guido Menzio was solving a set of differential equations on a plane departing the Philadelphia airport when the woman next to him surreptitiously passed a note to a flight attendant telling them she thought he was a terrorist because of the strange things he was writing on a pad of paper. The plane returned to the gate where he was questioned. At least this time the pilot had enough sense not to kick him off the flight.
Remember folks, if you see something say something!
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
UPenn Professor Solving DiffEQ on Scratchpad Causes Plane to Return to Gate
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 107 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
But what can you do with it?
-- ubiquitous cry from Linux-user partner
(Score: 2, Informative) by Lester on Monday May 09 2016, @09:08AM
Variable correlation may be casual because there are many other variables, moreover they don't say what's cause and what's effect, or if there are just proxy data. Inference, in economics world, is the final proof and evidence. And that's the problem, inference, in any science, is a good point for formulating an initial hypothesis to start research, but not a fact to build a whole theory on.
If you can't isolate variables, you can't prove things. So it's not science. There are zones of physics that are not demonstrable, contrary to economist, theoretical physicians know it, the economist don't or at least ignore it.
The main problem of accepting as science something that is not, isn't that you can't prove things, but that you can't refute anything. No matter how reality shows results against theory, there is always an unknown, hidden variable that can explain it. There is no progress, no revision, everything is petrified.
When I read "The undercover economist" I thought "What this book proves is that economy at this level is psychology and at nation level is sociology". What a bunch of unproven nosense. i.e. "more abortion, less crime" Excuse me, there are so many variables involved that such statement makes no sense. The problem is not that there are too much variables, the problem is that this guy dared to connect them and write it in a book.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Monday May 09 2016, @11:08AM
So how do you solve that problem without asking people to stop living? Most human decisions are made on matters for which there is no hope of grounding them to clear, demonstrable evidence. The physicist who seeks to apply methodologies that offer clarity in their field and the economist who remains blithely unaware of problems relating to the nature of knowledge both suffer from a form of impotence against the problems of life.
Yet we do know that problem solving strategies exist in these kinds of limited knowledge settings, although no a priori best approach exists (see the no free lunch theorem). This is heuristic reasoning and people use it because, theoretically there are circumstances where it can be effective, and because we've picked an arbitrary strategy out of a range of strategies for which the evidence is not sufficient to identify a clear, overwhelming winner.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 1) by Lester on Monday May 16 2016, @10:45AM
You are completely right. We have to make a lot of decisions with limited data and knowledge.
You can use science or you can use... let's call it intuition. It's amazing in how many cases intuition works well, not only well, but sometimes faster than science. In fact, "What are the scientific facts behind this intuition that seems to work always?" is a common topic of research.
If you can't apply science, because science for that matter doesn't exist, or because a quick acceptable decision now is better than a perfect solution latter, uses intuition. Nevertheless intuition has also a lot of pitfalls and sad record of wrong decisions. So, whenever If you can apply science, apply science. It's the safest bet
So, the first problem is when you insist in using intuition instead of science. And the really big problem is when, instead of using science or intuition, you use bad science or intuition disguised of science.