Author
|
Topic: Re: Wolfram: A skeptic critique (Read 651 times) |
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.06
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
  
|
 |
Re: Wolfram: A skeptic critique
« on: 2003-02-07 15:29:48 » |
 |
[rhinoceros]
I found these two articles in the latest Skeptic newsletter, which I posted on the BBS here:
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=5&action=display&threadid=25489&start=0
A New Kind of Science? (David Naiditch)
Of Triangles and Bulldogs -- Is Stephen Wolfram a Modern Pythagoras? (Michael Gilmore)
[rhinoceros]
Here is some bait for you from the first one:
<quote>
Sixth, Wolfram raised the hackles of the scientific panel as well as the audience when he rejected a well-established theory of a famous scientist: none other than Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. Although Wolfram does not claim natural selection is totally without merit, he does claim it is insufficient to fully explain the complexity found in the biological world. For instance, he claims that natural selection can explain phenomena such the lengthening of bones, but not fundamental changes to an animal's morphology. Wolfram also claims that, contrary to popular belief, evolution is not very important to biologists.
<snip>
In addition to these criticisms, other objections were raised to Wolfram's ideas. Steven Koonin pointed out that a paradigm shift cannot arise simply by asserting something is a paradigm shift. One must convince the scientific community that this description is warranted. To the contrary, according to David Stevenson, Wolfram fails to satisfy rules of what constitutes good science. Creating programs that generate images that look like things found in nature is not sufficient. One needs specific predictions. Wolfram does not offer any laboratory experiments or observations that could verify or falsify his grand claims.
Wolfram responded that the requirement of falsifiability does not apply to mathematics or computer science. He argued that his claims have the character of mathematics rather than physics, employing calculus as an analogy. Newton= showed how calculus provides a new way of doing science. Calculus itself, however, is not tested to determine whether it is true or false. Its justification is that it works. The panel rebutted that if this analogy is true, then Wolfram is just proposing a new kind of computational method, not a new kind of science.
Objections were also raised that Wolfram's theory lacks explanatory power. Not everything that is useful is explanatory. For example, David Stevenson explained that Feynman diagrams are very useful and can provide answers to problems of quantum mechanics much faster than answers obtained by computational methods. However, Feynman diagrams do not provide an explanation or deeper understanding of quantum phenomena. Again, it was emphasized that Wolfram seems to be offering a new kind of computational tool, not a new kind of science.
According to Wolfram, by generating patterns on the computer screen that resemble, for instance, snowflakes, he has explained how snowflakes acquire their complex symmetric structures. Panelists countered that such inferences are unwarranted. The resemblance does not, by itself, mean nature uses rules to generate snowflake patterns. Wolfram needs to demonstrate how nature physically instantiates the rules of cellular automata. Evidence is needed to show that the shape of snowflakes was produced by a physical mechanism whose behavior resembles the rules used by a computer.
John Preskill observed that few of the ideas presented in Wolfram's book are concrete enough to be usable by research scientists. Wolfram's answer that no experts in his field yet exist, does not address the problem. For example, Wolfram's most original ideas--such as the attempt to incorporate quantum theory and gravity using random network models and path independence--are too speculative to be of use to scientists.
At the end of the Caltech program the moderator, Steven Koonin, asked the panelists to predict whether in 20 years Wolfram's A New Kind of Science will be viewed as a paradigm shift. The unanimous answer was "no." One panelist said, "it is not an approach that has much promise," while another noted that Wolfram's ideas are the "Emperors New Clothes." Wolfram tried to get in the last word by stating that this reaction from the panelists is just what one would expect from a paradigm shift. But Steven Koonin rejoined that this is also just what one would expect if Wolfram's ideas did not amount to a paradigm shift. Ultimately, time will tell who is right.
<end quote>
|
|
|
|
|
Cassidy McGurk
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 128
Reputation: 7.84
Rate Cassidy McGurk
http://www.isec.info/ get me out of here!
|
|
Re: virus: Re: Wolfram: A skeptic critique
« Reply #1 on: 2003-02-08 05:25:07 » |
|
Thanks for those Rhino, I'd been saving up to buy the book, I won't
bother now.
rhinoceros wrote:
>[rhinoceros]
>I found these two articles in the latest Skeptic newsletter, which I posted on the BBS here:
>
>http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=5&action=display&threadid=25489&start=0
>
>
>A New Kind of Science? (David Naiditch)
>
>Of Triangles and Bulldogs -- Is Stephen Wolfram a Modern Pythagoras? (Michael Gilmore)
>
>
>[rhinoceros]
>Here is some bait for you from the first one:
>
><quote>
>Sixth, Wolfram raised the hackles of the scientific panel as well as the audience when he rejected a well-established theory of a famous scientist: none other than Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. Although Wolfram does not claim natural selection is totally without merit, he does claim it is insufficient to fully explain the complexity found in the biological world. For instance, he claims that natural selection can explain phenomena such the lengthening of bones, but not fundamental changes to an animal's morphology. Wolfram also claims that, contrary to popular belief, evolution is not very important to biologists.
>
><snip>
>
>Wolfram responded that the requirement of falsifiability does not apply to mathematics or computer science. He argued that his claims have the character of mathematics rather than physics, employing calculus as an analogy. Newton= showed how calculus provides a new way of doing science. Calculus itself, however, is not tested to determine whether it is true or false. Its justification is that it works. The panel rebutted that if this analogy is true, then Wolfram is just proposing a new kind of computational method, not a new kind of science.
>
><snip>
>
>In addition to these criticisms, other objections were raised to Wolfram's ideas. Steven Koonin pointed out that a paradigm shift cannot arise simply by asserting something is a paradigm shift. One must convince the scientific community that this description is warranted. To the contrary, according to David Stevenson, Wolfram fails to satisfy rules of what constitutes good science. Creating programs that generate images that look like things found in nature is not sufficient. One needs specific predictions. Wolfram does not offer any laboratory experiments or observations that could verify or falsify his grand claims.
>
>Wolfram responded that the requirement of falsifiability does not apply to mathematics or computer science. He argued that his claims have the character of mathematics rather than physics, employing calculus as an analogy. Newton= showed how calculus provides a new way of doing science. Calculus itself, however, is not tested to determine whether it is true or false. Its justification is that it works. The panel rebutted that if this analogy is true, then Wolfram is just proposing a new kind of computational method, not a new kind of science.
>
>Objections were also raised that Wolfram's theory lacks explanatory power. Not everything that is useful is explanatory. For example, David Stevenson explained that Feynman diagrams are very useful and can provide answers to problems of quantum mechanics much faster than answers obtained by computational methods. However, Feynman diagrams do not provide an explanation or deeper understanding of quantum phenomena. Again, it was emphasized that Wolfram seems to be offering a new kind of computational tool, not a new kind of science.
>
>According to Wolfram, by generating patterns on the computer screen that resemble, for instance, snowflakes, he has explained how snowflakes acquire their complex symmetric structures. Panelists countered that such inferences are unwarranted. The resemblance does not, by itself, mean nature uses rules to generate snowflake patterns. Wolfram needs to demonstrate how nature physically instantiates the rules of cellular automata. Evidence is needed to show that the shape of snowflakes was produced by a physical mechanism whose behavior resembles the rules used by a computer.
>
>John Preskill observed that few of the ideas presented in Wolfram's book are concrete enough to be usable by research scientists. Wolfram's answer that no experts in his field yet exist, does not address the problem. For example, Wolfram's most original ideas--such as the attempt to incorporate quantum theory and gravity using random network models and path independence--are too speculative to be of use to scientists.
>
>At the end of the Caltech program the moderator, Steven Koonin, asked the panelists to predict whether in 20 years Wolfram's A New Kind of Science will be viewed as a paradigm shift. The unanimous answer was "no." One panelist said, "it is not an approach that has much promise," while another noted that Wolfram's ideas are the "Emperors New Clothes." Wolfram tried to get in the last word by stating that this reaction from the panelists is just what one would expect from a paradigm shift. But Steven Koonin rejoined that this is also just what one would expect if Wolfram's ideas did not amount to a paradigm shift. Ultimately, time will tell who is right.
><end quote>
>
>
>
>----
>This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
><http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=27786>
>---
>To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
>
>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I must remember to change this sig regularly
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.06
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re: Wolfram: A skeptic critique
« Reply #2 on: 2003-02-08 05:51:13 » |
|
[rhinoceros]
I found these two articles in the latest Skeptic newsletter, which I posted on the BBS here:
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=5&action=display&threadid=25489&start=0
A New Kind of Science? (David Naiditch)
Of Triangles and Bulldogs -- Is Stephen Wolfram a Modern Pythagoras? (Michael Gilmore)
<snip>
[irvken]
Thanks for those Rhino, I'd been saving up to buy the book, I won't bother now.
[rhinoceros]
You are welcome, irvken. But keep in mind that these people admit to being skeptics. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
