Episode 87
David Weinberger | Complex Systems, Inexplicable Models, and the Future of Prediction
Episode 87
David Weinberger
David Weinberger | Complex Systems, Inexplicable Models, and the Future of Prediction
summary
In this week’s episode of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with philosopher David Weinberger about the science of prediction, its evolution, and its future.
The two begin by exploring classical approaches developed by early philosophers and mathematicians in the ancient world and upon which advancements were later made by enlightenment thinkers and experimental scientists.
The models developed in this tradition have, until now, provided explanations for phenomena, which are used to make predictions about the future states or trajectories of these and other phenomena that adhere the same laws of action or motion.
What is new today is the evolution of what are known as “machine learning algorithms,” many of which provide superior predictions to those generated by conceptual or working models, but which often times cannot provide explanations for these predictions. They are, in this sense, block-box oracles.
This represents a fundamental break with the sort of epistemological approach taken by the ancient Athenian philosophers who demanded that beliefs be justified by reasoned arguments or those of empirical scientists who relied upon falsifiability of testable hypotheses. In other words, whereas traditional approaches to science have necessitated the development of theoretical models of the world that can be tested empirically through the act of making falsifiable predictions, these new approaches are capable of generating predictions without a means by which to understand the causes at play.
What are the implications of this new science? If predictions provided by highly intelligent machines become consistently more accurate across all domains of study, would we prefer to accept these inexplicable solutions over less accurate ones whose methodology we understand? At the limit, if we were to implement every prediction of every MLA, would we arrive at a fated, perfectly knowable world? If machines become the equivalent of Delphi’s Oracle, what will be the value of doing science? The scientific method, after all, is the means by which we have been able to navigate and understand the material world, in material terms. Does this re-open humanity’s door to the preoccupation with the mystery of conscious experience, which cannot be explained through the scientific method of objective, empirical analysis?
These are the questions we explore in this week’s episode with David Weinberger and Demetri Kofinas.
Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas
Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou
Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod
bio
David Weinberger is a philosopher by training. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Toronto and taught college from 1980-1986. He was a gag writer for the comic strip “Inside Woody Allen” from 1976-1983. David has been a pioneering thought leader about the Internet’s effect on our lives, on our businesses, and most of all, on our ideas, from the earliest days of the Web. He has contributed to fields ranging from marketing to libraries to politics to journalism and more as a strategic marketing VP and consultant; an Internet adviser to presidential campaigns; an early social networking entrepreneur; a writer-in-residence at Google; a senior researcher at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, a fellow at Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, and a Franklin Fellow at the US State Department. His writing has appeared in publications from Wired to Harvard Business Review and his books include the bestselling The Cluetrain Manifesto.
transcript
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Fortemne possumus dicere eundem illum Torquatum? Non minor, inquit, voluptas percipitur ex vilissimis rebus quam ex pretiosissimis. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum. Sed erat aequius Triarium aliquid de dissensione nostra iudicare. Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem;
Sed quid minus probandum quam esse aliquem beatum nec satis beatum? Ita cum ea volunt retinere, quae superiori sententiae conveniunt, in Aristonem incidunt; Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Et hunc idem dico, inquieta sed ad virtutes et ad vitia nihil interesse. Utinam quidem dicerent alium alio beatiorem! Iam ruinas videres. Is ita vivebat, ut nulla tam exquisita posset inveniri voluptas, qua non abundaret. Nonne videmus quanta perturbatio rerum omnium consequatur, quanta confusio? Nihil enim iam habes, quod ad corpus referas;
Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam. Quae tamen a te agetur non melior, quam illae sunt, quas interdum optines. Rhetorice igitur, inquam, nos mavis quam dialectice disputare? Quid ei reliquisti, nisi te, quoquo modo loqueretur, intellegere, quid diceret? Quid me istud rogas? Quis istud possit, inquit, negare? Sed utrum hortandus es nobis, Luci, inquit, an etiam tua sponte propensus es?
Nam illud vehementer repugnat, eundem beatum esse et multis malis oppressum. Vide ne ista sint Manliana vestra aut maiora etiam, si imperes quod facere non possim. Cum salvum esse flentes sui respondissent, rogavit essentne fusi hostes. Quod cum dixissent, ille contra. Eademne, quae restincta siti? Sic, et quidem diligentius saepiusque ista loquemur inter nos agemusque communiter.
Full Episode
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. De quibus cupio scire quid sentias. Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet. Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Aliud igitur esse censet gaudere, aliud non dolere. Sed erat aequius Triarium aliquid de dissensione nostra iudicare. Ita similis erit ei finis boni, atque antea fuerat, neque idem tamen; Itaque et manendi in vita et migrandi ratio omnis iis rebus, quas supra dixi, metienda. Videamus igitur sententias eorum, tum ad verba redeamus. Utilitatis causa amicitia est quaesita. Quasi ego id curem, quid ille aiat aut neget.
Omnia peccata paria dicitis. Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Ita multo sanguine profuso in laetitia et in victoria est mortuus. Praeclare hoc quidem. Fortasse id optimum, sed ubi illud: Plus semper voluptatis? At modo dixeras nihil in istis rebus esse, quod interesset. An haec ab eo non dicuntur? Duo enim genera quae erant, fecit tria. Sic, et quidem diligentius saepiusque ista loquemur inter nos agemusque communiter. Si longus, levis.
Neminem videbis ita laudatum, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur. Eorum enim est haec querela, qui sibi cari sunt seseque diligunt. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Simus igitur contenti his. Non enim iam stirpis bonum quaeret, sed animalis. Illud mihi a te nimium festinanter dictum videtur, sapientis omnis esse semper beatos; Num igitur eum postea censes anxio animo aut sollicito fuisse? Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Ut placet, inquit, etsi enim illud erat aptius, aequum cuique concedere.
Sed quid ages tandem, si utilitas ab amicitia, ut fit saepe, defecerit? Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta. Quod, inquit, quamquam voluptatibus quibusdam est saepe iucundius, tamen expetitur propter voluptatem. Nec vero pietas adversus deos nec quanta iis gratia debeatur sine explicatione naturae intellegi potest. Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam. Hoc Hieronymus summum bonum esse dixit.
intelligence report
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Magno hic ingenio, sed res se tamen sic habet, ut nimis imperiosi philosophi sit vetare meminisse. Quae si potest singula consolando levare, universa quo modo sustinebit? Quis est, qui non oderit libidinosam, protervam adolescentiam? Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Etenim semper illud extra est, quod arte comprehenditur.
Sedulo, inquam, faciam. Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Honesta oratio, Socratica, Platonis etiam. Sedulo, inquam, faciam. Non semper, inquam; Quid, quod res alia tota est? At habetur! Et ego id scilicet nesciebam! Sed ut sit, etiamne post mortem coletur? Praeclare hoc quidem.
Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. Sedulo, inquam, faciam. Cur fortior sit, si illud, quod tute concedis, asperum et vix ferendum putabit? Nonne videmus quanta perturbatio rerum omnium consequatur, quanta confusio? Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Gerendus est mos, modo recte sentiat. Tum Torquatus: Prorsus, inquit, assentior;
Videmus igitur ut conquiescere ne infantes quidem possint. Verba tu fingas et ea dicas, quae non sentias? Quis est autem dignus nomine hominis, qui unum diem totum velit esse in genere isto voluptatis? Age, inquies, ista parva sunt.
related episodes
Video
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum. Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. Quid ergo attinet gloriose loqui, nisi constanter loquare? A mene tu?
Quid ergo aliud intellegetur nisi uti ne quae pars naturae neglegatur? Quod cum dixissent, ille contra. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar?
Polemoni et iam ante Aristoteli ea prima visa sunt, quae paulo ante dixi. Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit. Sed in rebus apertissimis nimium longi sumus. Rhetorice igitur, inquam, nos mavis quam dialectice disputare?
Fortasse id optimum, sed ubi illud: Plus semper voluptatis? Nam ista vestra: Si gravis, brevis; Theophrasti igitur, inquit, tibi liber ille placet de beata vita? At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet.