82,927
edits
Signal-to-noise ratio: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
In any case, it follows that, should we transcend our meagre [[hermeneutic]] bubbles, and free the incarcerate race of {{sex|man}}, so to speak, the [[signal-to-noise ratio|signal]] of ''our'' data to the '''noise''' of ''all possible data'' out there is ''infinitesimal''.<ref>That means, ''really'' small.</ref> | In any case, it follows that, should we transcend our meagre [[hermeneutic]] bubbles, and free the incarcerate race of {{sex|man}}, so to speak, the [[signal-to-noise ratio|signal]] of ''our'' data to the '''noise''' of ''all possible data'' out there is ''infinitesimal''.<ref>That means, ''really'' small.</ref> | ||
If this is what we’re meant to trust, you might ask what is so wrong with God. We are [[The Patterning Instinct: A Cultural History of Humanity’s Search for Meaning - Book Review|pattern-seeking machines]]. | If this is what we’re meant to trust, you might ask what is so wrong with God. We are [[The Patterning Instinct: A Cultural History of Humanity’s Search for Meaning - Book Review|pattern-seeking machines]]. It’s not like we take the data as we find them, coolly fashioning objective axioms from them, carving nature at its joints: we bring our idiosyncratic prisms and pre-existing cognitive structures to the task —our own “hot takes” — and wantonly create patterns to support our pre-existing convictions. | ||
This is not a criticism | This is not a criticism as much as a piece of resignation: an observation. ''This'' is the doom our incarcerate race endures. | ||
It is not just the Twitterati. | It is not just the Twitterati. Science, too, has its [[confirmation bias]]es at a meta-level, uncontrollable even by double-blind testing methodologies. Experiments which ''confirm'' a hypothesis are ''a lot'' more likely to be published than those which ''don’t''.<ref>{{br|The Hidden Half: How the World Conceals its Secrets}}, by Michael Blastland.</ref> Of those failed experiments that ''are'' published, far fewer are cited in other literature. [[Falsification]]s ''die''. | ||
It happens in any, and every social structure: even [[woke]] ones. Whoever occupies a position of standing or influence in a [[power structure]], wields the tremendous power to ''ignore'' ideas which don’t suit her own predilections. As long as the power structure is not in crisis, “inconvenient”, “awkward”, “disruptive” suggestions are a distraction; they divert resources from the true path; they undermine the existing programme, and those who are conducting it. It is much easier to overlook the direction a new suggestion might take than engage energy, time and resources in a fight you might end up losing. We all do it. Ask Kodak: someone there ''invented the digital camera''. Management looked the other way: it didn’t suit the path the firm was on. | |||
All of these are another way of attacking a familiar problem: the universe, the world, the nation, your market, your workplace and even your interpersonal relationships are [[complex]], not | [[Falsification]]s ''die''. | ||
This is neither a cause for alarm nor is it new. It is just a reminder how important, in all human discourse, is [[Contingencies|contingency]], provisionality, and above all ''humility''. ''Your data is likely bunk''. | |||
All of these are another way of attacking a familiar problem: the universe, the world, the nation, your market, your workplace and even your interpersonal relationships are [[complex]], not just [[complicated]]. Mere [[complication]] is a ''function'' of a [[paradigm]]. It is part of the game. It is within the rules. It is soluble, by sufficiently skilled application of the rules. Complication can be beaten by an algorithm. You ''can'' brute force it. | |||
[[Complexity]], you cannot. | [[Complexity]], you cannot. | ||