gusl: (Default)
Newton da Costa reviews "An Architectonic for Science"

Pfeiffer, Niehave - EVALUATION OF CONCEPTUAL MODELS – A STRUCTURALIST APPROACH seems to be about how to evaluate the logic of scientific theories. They compare it with the problem of evaluating software.

Wajnberg, Corruble, Ganascia, and C. Ulises Moulines - A Structuralist Approach towards Computational Scientific Discovery"

Tangent:

Henry Kyburg - Combinatorial Semantics: Semantics for Frequent Validity
The title sounds dumb. But it's Henry Kyburg, and he seems thorough review of previous attempts to combine probability and logic.

Henry Kyburg - Uncertain Inferences and Uncertain Conclusions
Uncertainty may be taken to characterize inferences, their conclusions, their premises or all three. Under some treatments of uncertainty, the inference itself is never characterized by uncertainty. We explore both the significance of uncertainty in the premises and in the conclusion of an argument that involves uncertainty. We argue that for uncertainty to characterize the conclusion of an inference is natural, but that there is an interplay between uncertainty in the premises and uncertainty in the procedure of argument itself. We show that it is possible in principle to incorporate all uncertainty in the premises, rendering uncertainty arguments deductively valid. But we then argue (1) that this does not reflect human argument, (2) that it is computationally costly, and (3) that the gain in simplicity obtained by allowing uncertainty in inference can sometimes outweigh the loss of flexibility it entails.
gusl: (Default)
My compiled rants against physicists. In response to like-minded [livejournal.com profile] quale, I wrote the following:


[livejournal.com profile] quale wrote: I dropped out of being a physics major because everyone was just dogmatically accepting the notion of entropy as the "log of the number of states" and didn't want to question what the hell that really meant.

Me too! Not just they way they gloss over entropy, but also where the Schroedinger equation comes from, etc., and the way they avoid thinking about paradoxes (e.g. Maxwell's demon: is entropy subjective?, this one about classical mechanics). And the fact that nobody bothers to fix the very bad notation traditionally used in some physics is a pretty bad sign too (nobody except for my hero Sussman).

In college physics, I was just told to plug-and-play, which made me very unhappy. I was interested in finding logical relationships between sets physical axioms (e.g. how to prove that energy is proportional to amplitude squared using only the additiveness of amplitude and energy conservation).

Since I like my knowledge network to be dense / tight (i.e. certain), ignoring foundational questions and paradoxes is totally against my cognitive style, but I wonder if being less conservative might sometimes be a good idea, if the goal is to make the science progress: it might sometimes be a good idea to ignore foundational questions.
gusl: (Default)
See http://www.optimizelife.com/wiki/index.php/My_Breathing#Causal_Processes

All the pieces finally fall into place:

Causal diagram of Chronic Rhinitis

Solid lines mean positive influence (+), i.e. more of the source tends to cause more of the target.
Dashed lines mean negative influence (-), i.e. more of the source tends to cause less of the target.


N.B.: I don't suffer from all causes or all symptoms above.

I could add a node for "vasoconstrictor" (e.g. Afrin) right next to "fluticasone", having a negative (e.g. health-positive) effect on "amount of blood in mucosa", but the problem is that vasoconstrictors have a short-term effect that rebound, becoming a positive (e.g. health-negative) effect.

Thanks WikiTex/Wikisophia, for providing me with a sandbox! Wiki code is behind the cut.

Fluticasone appears to be effective in the long run. But if I end up needing to use it for the rest of my life, then I'll go for a ~50% partial turbinectomy (under the knife, since laser seems to damage mucociliary function).

I am interested in the semantics of these diagrams, and how they relate to argument maps and formal proofs.


semantics of diagrams

* Say we want to instantiate a particular allergen and a particular individual: what kind of graph rewriting will we need to do?

* What about expressing the distinction between independent and dependent influences (e.g. conjunction, synergy)?

* What about tagging nodes with information about which leaves are controllable?

* Some effects have preconditions: snoring requires sleeping. Sleeping requires lying down. So we have an implicit relationship in the graph: the consequence is that turbinate enlargement will be worse during sleep. Could conclusions of the kind be drawn automatically, by simply adding to the implicit information to the current representation?


Read more... )

February 2020

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags