Najla Alariefy on Twitter

http://Najla.cc | Meta-thinking | Aspiring Futurist | I write paradigms on the Past, Present & Future

Systems | Complexity | ML/AI | عربي @Najla_Alariefy

Riyadh

Dołączył lipiec 2009

Kraj	Kod	Dla klientów
Stany Zjednoczone	40404	(dowolny)
Kanada	21212	(dowolny)
Wielka Brytania	86444	Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
Brazylia	40404	Nextel, TIM
Haiti	40404	Digicel, Voila
Irlandia	51210	Vodafone, O2
Indie	53000	Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
Indonezja	89887	AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
Włochy	4880804	Wind
3424486444	Vodafone
» Zobacz krótkie kody SMS dla innych państw

Najla Alariefy‏ @NajlaAlariefy 7 lis 2020

How should we create knowledge? We know "The Scientific Method" well: we ask questions then seek answers. But what about having many answers, and no questions? (Paper summary + more)pic.twitter.com/OWPhVTmxab

4 odpowiedzi 11 podanych dalej 71 polubionych

Pokaż ten wątek

Najla Alariefy‏ @NajlaAlariefy 7 lis 2020

"Here is the evidence, now what is the hypothesis?" This commentary was written in 2003 by Kell & Oliver, after the Human Genome project was completed. They saw a proliferation of data in many fields, but also saw resistance on data-driven explorations.

1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 3 polubione

Pokaż ten wątek

Najla Alariefy‏ @NajlaAlariefy 7 lis 2020

Science was mostly driven by hypotheses. i.e. we begin by ideas/questions, then look for the data to validate. Data-driven exploration was sometimes rejected & criticized as “merely a fishing expedition’’. To understand why, we need to visit logic.pic.twitter.com/ACtqsISDFm

2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 5 polubionych

Pokaż ten wątek

Najla Alariefy‏ @NajlaAlariefy 7 lis 2020

We build knowledge through inference — through cause/effect relations. There are two (main) types for inference: - Deductive: it rained (cause) -> grass is wet (effect) - Inductive: grass is wet + we didn't water -> it rained Hypothesis is deductive, data-driven is inductive.pic.twitter.com/aP3CqB05zY

2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 8 polubionych

Pokaż ten wątek

Najla Alariefy‏ @NajlaAlariefy 7 lis 2020

There is a reason why scientists prefer deduction: Induction is 'philosophically insecure', because there could be counter examples that we didn't see. ‘The great tragedy of Science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact’—T.H. Huxley

2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 7 polubionych

Pokaż ten wątek

Najla Alariefy‏ @NajlaAlariefy 7 lis 2020

Hume illustrates this with his turkey example: You see a turkey being fed everyday at 9am. You assume that everyday, it’s fed at 9am. Except one day, it’s not fed, it’s slaughtered.pic.twitter.com/7lcT0W6CFT

1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 6 polubionych

Pokaż ten wątek

Najla Alariefy‏ @NajlaAlariefy 7 lis 2020

This is one caveat of inductive science, it is all laden with assumption. David Wolpert calls this the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorem. It’s now widely used as an anchor when considering models. NFL means you can induce but please acknowledge your assumptions.

1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 5 polubionych

Pokaż ten wątek

Najla Alariefy‏ @NajlaAlariefy 7 lis 2020

You can hear Wolpert's discussion in @sfiscience’s recent podcast. https://complexity.simplecast.com/episodes/45 Also, here’s an excellent essay on how to understand the No Free Lunch Theorem by @amuellerml https://peekaboo-vision.blogspot.com/2019/07/dont-cite-no-free-lunch-theorem.html …

1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 11 polubionych

Pokaż ten wątek

Najla Alariefy‏ @NajlaAlariefy 7 lis 2020

Anyways, we’ve had fruitful attempts at hypothesis-free science (i.e. inductive): Examples: - Epidemiology — many diseases studied through exploration. - Astronomy — Kepler monitored planet orbits, logged the data and then induced a math relationship.