Meteorology, the science of the weather and of its prediction, has always been, both in the past and even more so in the present, the target of criticism and even jibes, the standard of its forecasting leaving much to be desired. In the words of one humorist among many, `Weather forecasting is a science which tells us about the weather we should have had !' (P. Bouvard). We can't really know what the weather will be like more than two or three days ahead, as many forecasters will confirm. But now, all this has been erased in a trice! Now, it is unhesitatingly claimed, we can predict weather and climate (which is the sum of weather) as far ahead as the year 2100, from our viewpoint a century earlier! Astrology or science?
- Details
- Hits: 1605
Historically, AI research has been informed by an anthropocentric notion of intelligence. Human intelligence as the point of reference is present in several definitions of AI. For instance, AI has been called “the art of creating machines that perform functions that require intelligence when performed by people”24 and “the study of how to make computers do things at which, at the moment, people are better.” Similarly, the Merriam Webster dictionary describes AI as “the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior.” Indeed, the aim of achieving a likeness between minds and machines was already prevalent among pioneers of AI research, such as Wiener, Turing, and von Neumann.
While human intelligence provides a useful standard of comparison, it is ultimately of limited use. Not only do existing applications of AI already show super-human performance with regard to specific tasks, such as playing and winning at chess, but also, they do not have to function like the human mind, nor do they need to exhibit self-awareness and consciousness to perform tasks that would otherwise require intelligence when done by humans. Furthermore, there can be forms of nonhuman intelligence, as is found in some animals but also in certain phenomena of collective behavior, such as swarm intelligence. Important distinctions can thus be made between a human versus a more general rational standard and between behavioral versus thought-based definitions of intelligence. However, even within these categories it is possible to conceive of intelligence differently, for example in terms of capabilities, functions, or principles. In sum, there is, as Moore has noted, “no general theory of intelligence or learning that unites the discipline.”
- Details
- Hits: 1577
The really valuable skills today are in knowing how to find information and (more important) how to critically assess what you find. Here is a guide to navigating the jungle of information out there in the digital wilds: What is the source of the information? There is no single unimpeachable source of information (that’s right, not even the SGU). Some sources are better than others, however. Academic sites have been found, when checked for quality, to be the most reliable. Other institutions may also be reliable. If accuracy is important to their reputation, there is likely a team of people working on content, some sort of editorial process or peer review, and they don’t have an extreme agenda. Group blogs by professionals are also usually good sources of information. They’re more credible than individual blogs or web pages, which are highly variable depending on the individual. Commercial sites are generally less trustworthy. The worst sites, however, are extreme ideological sites that exist to promote a specific narrative. Sometimes the goal is to promote a narrative and sell you stuff, as on the infamous medical conspiracy site Natural News. But, as I said, no one site is perfect. So you need to look at a variety of sources. Further, it’s important to find out where that source got its information from—what the primary source is. It’s common on the web for sites to reproduce or simply link to other sources of information (that’s what the web means). You have to track information back to the original source. Sometimes that original source isn’t reliable, even though it is being repeated by mainstream outlets. It’s also possible that the original source, which may be a published scientific study or primary journalism, has been misrepresented by secondary sources. At other times one primary source gets repeated so many times that you may think it is many sources, but all roads lead back to the same primary. It’s extremely important that you specifically look for a variety of sources and opinions. Before I accept any claim, I always want to know who disagrees with that claim and what the reasons are for their rejection of it. If possible, I then want to find out how the first side answers their critics, and how the critics answer these responses. In essence it’s important to follow a discussion through to the end. Sometimes you don’t know who has the better position until you’ve heard all the point-counterpoints and find out who has the last word. You also need to independently examine the arguments of each side to see who has the better arguments. Which side has better sources of evidence? Which side uses more valid logic? If one side has to consistently resort to logical fallacies and distortions, and never really answers their critics, they probably have a weak position. It’s possible that neither side is completely right or completely wrong. That doesn’t mean there is always a balance. Sometimes one side is completely wrong (like anti-vaxxers). Sometimes the answer is pretty much in between two extremes, and sometimes we just don’t have the answer and you have to reserve judgment. It’s perfectly okay to say that you don’t have an opinion about a topic if you don’t feel you’ve done adequate research. It is also extremely useful to check yourself against other people you respect and who have the appropriate expertise. I always check my understanding of a topic against the experts when I can. If my take is different from theirs, I need to find out why. Usually it means I’m missing something. You need to make a concerted effort not to cherry-pick—don’t just accept the first answer, or the answer you want. Don’t seek out an expert who agrees with you and then conclude that you must be correct. Seek out experts who disagree with you. Those are the people you need to listen to. The process is never over. All conclusions are tentative, and you should not stake them out forever or make them part of your identity. If you learn new information, happily incorporate it into your assessment. Take pride in the ability to change your mind. This doesn’t mean you never have strong opinions, just that they should be only as strong as the evidence and logic support, and open to revision. Here are some personal adventures we have had in using skeptical scientific thinking to learn about, and sometimes debunk, topics over the years. Grab your towel, put on your slippers, and join us as we venture forth into the wilderness. It is often frustrating, sometimes scary, but always rewarding.
- Details
- Hits: 1571
It is a widely held notion that we are a disillusioned people living in a disenchanted age. Indeed, a belief that scientific advance inevitably leads to the demystification of the world - an eventuality that is sometimes celebrated and sometimes deplored - is so prevalent that is virtually a modern axiom.
But to interpret mystery so passively - to think of it as being merely the effect of ignorance - is to neglect the implications of the active verb form: to mystify. Mystification does not, exclusively, happen: it can also be enacted. To mystify and to demystify are valid alternatives which humans can, if they choose, use in the pursuit of their individual or collective purposes.
- Details
- Hits: 1535