Comments on: The End of Theory? https://blog.speculist.com/philosophy/the-end-of-theo.html Live to see it. Thu, 16 Dec 2021 08:21:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1 By: MikeD https://blog.speculist.com/philosophy/the-end-of-theo.html#comment-3808 MikeD Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:58:46 +0000 http://localhost/specblog/?p=1607#comment-3808 This reminded me of the Stargate SG1 Asgard’s inability to think of lowly (human-like) solutions due to a history of powerful computing. In that case, it took the relatively dumb idea of chemical projectile weapons to prevail where high-energy beam weapons failed.

If we’ve always managed to leverage reasoning where brute-force power was unavailable, then increased power should give elegant reasoning even greater utility…

]]> By: Stephen Gordon https://blog.speculist.com/philosophy/the-end-of-theo.html#comment-3807 Stephen Gordon Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:09:59 +0000 http://localhost/specblog/?p=1607#comment-3807 Agreed. At the very least theory will inform scientists as to what questions to ask of the data.

But I think Anderson is right that this represents a fundamental shift in how science is done.

Arthur C. Clarke’s distinguished but elderly scientist has inadvertently slowed progress in the past. You can’t blame them really. Like everything else, science has limited resources. Those distinguished old guys want to make sure to spend those resources wisely. They don’t won’t to waste effort on fool’s errands.

But Petabyte power reduces the cost of inquiry to the point that it won’t hurt to ask “foolish” questions. The distinguished old guys won’t be able to slow progress, but their power to contribute (through good theory) will be amplified.

If, for example, you think that treating mitochondrial damage could extend life, maybe a huge double-blind study isn’t necessary to get a rough answer. Just consult the data. If the answer is positive, then you set up the huge double-blind study.

]]>