Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
JS> Rich,
RC> Although the interesting algorithms aren't that
well defined -
> they're evolving like stem cells and
continue to this day.
I shouldn't have used the phrase "well-defined
algorithm(s)"
because it is irrelevant whether you have a precisely
defined
algorithm or a bunch of heuristics to do the data
mining. Any
method, formal or informal, that is limited to finding
patterns
in a fixed set of data cannot distinguish a law from a
coincidence.
So you consider data mining to be properly
mathematized already?
Furthermore, it's irrelevant whether the pattern
finder is a
computer program, a human being, or an
extraterrestrial alien.
An algorithm, a machine...
In terms of scientific method, any pattern found in
any given
set of data is a *hypothesis*. Before it can be
considered a
scientific law or theory, it must make testable
*predictions*
about new cases that have never previously been
observed.
The stem cell - a hypothesis about the
current state.
Bode's law about the distances of planets from the sun
was
originally formulated by J. D. Titius on the basis of
the planets
from Mercury to Saturn. When Uranus was
discovered, the formula
had to be adjusted. But then Neptune
completely destroyed the
pattern and showed that the so-called "law"
had no predictive
power.
Otherwise, the weak law of large numbers
wouldn't work.
That is an example of "data mining"
performed by humans based
on a fixed set of data. The pattern they found
was shown to
be a coincidence that had no predictive power.
JFS> Those patterns might be the result of
fundamental laws,
> or they might be accidental patterns that
could be violated
> by the next update to the database.
RC> Or they might be bound to the
conceptualizations in the observer's
> cranium, whether fundamental or preaproved
or officially not.
The issues have nothing to do with the nature of the
observer.
It is irrelevant whether it's human, alien, or
intelligent computer.
The question is whether the agent is limited to
finding patterns in
a fixed set of data (i.e., data mining) or whether it
considers the
patterns to be tentative hypotheses to be tested by
their predictions.
Scientific method depends critically on testing
hypotheses to
determine whether they can make reliable
predictions. And the
nature of the agent is irrelevant.
JFS> Some additional analysis and testing is necessary
to
> distinguish principles from coincidences.
RC> Recursion does that very nicely. If you
can learn it once,
> you can learn it N times.
No. Recursive methods limited to a fixed set of
data can't
do anything to distinguish a law from a coincidence.
The critical issue is whether the hypothesis derived
by data
mining from a given set of data can make testable
predictions
on new data. And the more varied the
circumstances in which the
data is obtained and verified, the more reliable the
hypothesis,
and the more likely that it indicates something real,
not just
a verbal (i.e., nominalist) formula.
John
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe:
mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx