5 ms·

Biology is in some sense a language, how do we even agree on what the boundaries of biology vs other domains of science are without participants agreeing on the

by __alexs 1mo ago

Biology is in some sense a language, how do we even agree on what the boundaries of biology vs other domains of science are without participants agreeing on the rules? In any case I think you have an overly narrow definition of learning that we're unlikely to come to terms over.

fluoridation 1mo ago
>how do we even agree on what the boundaries of biology vs other domains of science are without participants agreeing on the rules? Those boundaries are completely imaginary and don't exist in reality. In reality there's no biology, there's only elementary particles interacting physically. Whether you agree with someone else to classify a phenomenon as biological or chemical, you're not refining your knowledge of the real world, you're just performing an organizational task. But, say, how many times the tympanic ear evolved independently is a real phenomenon that can be investigated, and it's something that you're either correct, incorrect, or ignorant about. If I tell you it evolved five times, what more can either of us gleam about the real facts by just discussing this factoid back and forth, if neither of us has access to any additional knowledge or way to put this datum to the test?
elbear 1mo ago
He's talking about learning that makes you operational. If you can speak with someone, then you've learned language. If you can get a computer to do something, then you've learned some programming. The equivalent for biology would be to grow a plant or a few plants and animals successfully. That's operational at a certain level, you could also be operational at a lower or higher level.
- fluoridation 1mo ago
  No, it doesn't necessarily need to be applicable, it just needs to be testable. The size of the Earth for example may not affect you directly in any way, but it's something you can verify to some degree of precision. But if you just read about it, can you really say that you know it? What if all you believe about the size and shape of the Earth is from what you've asked an LLM? Do you still know it? EDIT: Perhaps not the best example, because the size and shape of the Earth are data that are repeated often enough that an LLM would be unlikely to quote it grossly incorrectly, but I think my point still comes across.
  - skydhash 1mo ago
    I’ve been burned by this enough that I no longer say that I’ve learned something if my only interaction with it is explanation from books. You can get snippets of knowledge and a framework of understanding, but true learning only comes with deep interaction of the concepts (practice, simulation, experiments, observations) and not merely reading.

by __alexs 1mo ago

fluoridation 1mo ago

>how do we even agree on what the boundaries of biology vs other domains of science are without participants agreeing on the rules? Those boundaries are completely imaginary and don't exist in reality. In reality there's no biology, there's only elementary particles interacting physically. Whether you agree with someone else to classify a phenomenon as biological or chemical, you're not refining your knowledge of the real world, you're just performing an organizational task. But, say, how many times the tympanic ear evolved independently is a real phenomenon that can be investigated, and it's something that you're either correct, incorrect, or ignorant about. If I tell you it evolved five times, what more can either of us gleam about the real facts by just discussing this factoid back and forth, if neither of us has access to any additional knowledge or way to put this datum to the test?

elbear 1mo ago

He's talking about learning that makes you operational. If you can speak with someone, then you've learned language. If you can get a computer to do something, then you've learned some programming. The equivalent for biology would be to grow a plant or a few plants and animals successfully. That's operational at a certain level, you could also be operational at a lower or higher level.

fluoridation 1mo ago
No, it doesn't necessarily need to be applicable, it just needs to be testable. The size of the Earth for example may not affect you directly in any way, but it's something you can verify to some degree of precision. But if you just read about it, can you really say that you know it? What if all you believe about the size and shape of the Earth is from what you've asked an LLM? Do you still know it? EDIT: Perhaps not the best example, because the size and shape of the Earth are data that are repeated often enough that an LLM would be unlikely to quote it grossly incorrectly, but I think my point still comes across.
- skydhash 1mo ago
  I’ve been burned by this enough that I no longer say that I’ve learned something if my only interaction with it is explanation from books. You can get snippets of knowledge and a framework of understanding, but true learning only comes with deep interaction of the concepts (practice, simulation, experiments, observations) and not merely reading.