Hacker News
points by funcDropShadow 4 days ago | 0 comments
> One bit stands out to me: to better understand, Scholz will work the problem backwards. Sometimes that strategy is just so spot on.

In David Deutsch's book The Beginning of Infinity, he argues, that the purpose of science is not to merely predict or to model the world, but to explain it. And he gives in my opinion convincing arguments, why a better explanation is needed to advance science. Therefore, he deduces that pure empiricism has failed. Because no matter how much data you have gathered, an explanation does not follow from it. The explanation is always an insight the scientist has to contribute. Then it is open to scrutiny by criticism or experiments.

I guess he would argue the same is true for mathematicians. Merely constructing proofs to arrive at theorem, is of no intrinsic value, if it doesn't spark an idea of a more elegant formalism that corresponds to a simpler and even more far reaching explanation.

I cannot recommend this book highly enough to anyone who is intellectually curious, not only about epistemology.

[–] threatofrain 3 days ago
Many high stakes problems are blocked by a specific insight, and once known, the people who are highly invested in those problems won't put sufficient care into whether we've built a supporting framework of ergonomic theory for humans.

That's not to say there isn't value in building mathematical insight for humans, just that there is a goldmine and a lot of people know what to do with gold, even if they don't understand the ecosystem surrounding the gold.

[–] funcDropShadow 3 days ago
True, but shortsighted. If we continue to pile proofs and new theorems on top of each other without taking care of making those new abstractions understandable, then we will limit our reach. Even though AI might be able to progress further.