Are you outraged by #RFK 's oversight over YOUR health, YOUR well being & YOUR life?
Review this
petition & Sign
joining me, to have him resign from his position
https://www.change.org/p/stand-with-the-cdc-demand-robert-f-kennedy-jr-s-resignation-now
IRIS Insights I Nico Formanek: Are hyperparameters vibes?
April 24, 2025, 2:00 p.m. (CEST)
Our second IRIS Insights talk will take place with Nico Formanek.
This talk will discuss the role of hyperparameters in optimization methods for model selection (currently often called ML) from a philosophy of science point of view. Special consideration is given to the question of whether there can be principled ways to fix hyperparameters in a maximally agnostic setting.
This is a WebEx talk to which everyone who is interested is cordially invited. It will take place in English. Our IRIS speaker, Jun.-Prof. Dr. Maria Wirzberger, will moderate it. Following Nico Formanek's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. We look forward to active participation.
Please join this Webex talk using the following link:
https://lnkd.in/eJNiUQKV
#Hyperparameters #ModelSelection #Optimization #MLMethods #PhilosophyOfScience #ScientificMethod #AgnosticLearning #MachineLearning #InterdisciplinaryResearch #AIandPhilosophy #EthicsInAI #ResponsibleAI #AITheory #WebTalk #OnlineLecture #ResearchTalk #ScienceEvents #OpenInvitation #AICommunity #LinkedInScience #TechPhilosophy #AIConversations
A quotation from Taleb, Nassim Nicholas:
«
Knowledge is subtractive, not additive — what we subtract (reduction by what does not work, what not to do), not what we add (what to do).
»
Full quote, sourcing, notes:
https://wist.info/taleb-nassim-nicholas/74121/
Science is nothing like religion. Science is a method that uses evidence and peer-review processes to verify the validity of its claims. Religion is the opposite. It has dictates by a god that are to be accepted implicitly and not questioned, even if they make no sense logically or scientifically.
I find the same with many fans of what is often called ‘hard science fiction.’
Those with a little knowledge are quite pretentiously committed to it and sneer at literature, film and television that explores a wider canvas of possibility and their audiences. Those with advanced science degrees are often impatient with the implausible logical contortions that authors of recent ‘hard SF’ make just to keep the science speculation to a minimum.
While the concept seems intended to describe science fiction, imaginative stories that extrapolate from established science fact and theory, what it usually means to its proponents is that the fiction has to be limited to what a person with a mid 20th century bachelor’s degree in physics would know.
Setting aside the weirdness of holding physics theory constant while allowing fictional biology, chemistry, math and engineering to advance around 20th century physics, such fiction usually lacks the curiosity and ‘What if?’ elements that drive scientists.
Attacks on democracy are attacks on science — and vice versa
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03870-9
* Democratic ideals increasingly called into question in many quarters
* science that exercises social criticism is dependent on democratic conditions
"A regulation that works might well produce no visible sign that it's working. If your water purification system works, everything is fine. It's only when you get rid of the sanitation system that you discover why it was there in the first place, a realization that might well arrive as you expire in a slick of watery stool with a rectum so prolapsed the survivors can use it as a handle when they drag your corpse to the mass burial pits.
When Musk and Ramaswamy decry the influence of "unelected bureaucrats" on your life as "undemocratic," they sound reasonable. If unelected bureaucrats were permitted to set policy without democratic instruction or oversight, that would be autocracy.
Indeed, it would resemble life on the Tesla factory floor: that most autocratic of institutions, where you are at the mercy of the unelected and unqualified CEO of Tesla, who holds the purely ceremonial title of "Chief Engineer" and who paid the company's true founders to falsely describe him as its founder.
But that's not how it works! At its best, expert regulations turns political choices in to policy that reflects the will of democratically accountable, elected representatives. Sometimes this fails, and when it does, the answer is to fix the system – not abolish it."
https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/21/policy-based-evidence/#decisions-decisions
@hannu_ikonen
The official name of #FAFO is the #ScientificMethod:
The piranha problem: Large effects swimming in a small pond.
Christopher Tosh, Philip Greengard, Ben Goodrich, Andrew Gelman, @avehtari, @djhsu
2 Apr 2024
https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.13445
In a lot of social science research, small, random factors are reported as having large effects on social and political attitudes and behavior (social priming, hormonal levels,parental socioeconomic status, weather, ...). Studies have claimed to find large effects from these and other inputs.
The results show that it would be extremely unlikely to have all these large effects coexisting—they would have to almost exactly cancel each other out.
Here's another article based on a trend I just don't get. Studies that yield negative results tend not to be published, or even submitted for publication. The article refers to such studies several times as "failed" studies.
This runs contrary to the principle I taught my junior high science students thirty years ago. I had them come up with an experimental design, create a hypothesis, perform the experiment, and document their results, just like any science class. The most significant lesson from this process isn't just how to perform and document an experiment; it's recognizing that even if your hypothesis is incorrect, you've learned something about the phenomenon you're studying.
It's hard to believe that the scientific community overall is just realizing the importance of negative or unexpected results. The next time someone studies a certain phenomenon, reviewing negative results tells them what to exclude or control. Otherwise they may unknowingly include factors that have already been shown to affect the results.
Earth and Environmental Science – week 8
It is week 8 in the UNSW Earth and Environmental Science course, and the class is working towards writing a lab report on Sydney soil lead pollution. Last week, students used a portable x-ray fluorescence analyser to test soil samples that they had collected from their homes or across UNSW campus. This week the focus of the class was hypothesis testing.
#academia #teaching #education #pollution #soils #environmentalscience #earthscience #science #scientificmethod #Sydney #UNSW #GEOS1211
http://andy-baker.org/2024/04/04/earth-and-environmental-sciences-week-8/
#Journalism #ScientificJournalism #ScientificMethod: "Angwin sees that unraveling as Proof’s job, and she’s looking to science, rather than journalistic traditions, to inform the publication’s work. She wants Proof’s work to be inspired by the scientific method rather than ideas of objectivity: reporters will develop hypotheses and test them through the reporting process, building software and data sets that will be released to the public for review. Much like a published scientific paper, each story will also be accompanied by an “ingredients label” that lays out its hypothesis, sample size, reporting techniques, key findings, and limitations.
Developing a hypothesis is another term for asking questions, which is essential to all journalism, and in her letter Angwin admits that looking to science is not a new idea; Walter Lippmann, the namesake of the building that houses the Nieman Foundation, called for a scientific approach rather than chasing scoops back in 1922, and Angwin herself wrote about the idea last year.
Unlike scientists, Proof’s journalists will not be subjected to the processes like IRBs or peer reviews that have become hallmarks of modern-day scientific publishing. “It’s not realistic for journalism to [be subjected to those processes] because we are still trying to be faster than science can usually move,” Angwin said. “I see the scientific method is more of a philosophical approach, something I’m aiming toward but not aiming to achieve.” https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/03/proof-news-is-julia-angwins-attempt-to-bring-the-scientific-method-to-investigative-journalism/
Some things that fascinate me:
