Connectionists: Brain-like computing fanfare and big data fanfare

[John Collins]

Ping,

You are undoubtedly correct about the typical cases you encounter in 
psychology.  My remark was only intended to counter the idea that, when 
experiment and theory disagree, it is always the theory that is to be 
blamed.  The situation is not universal in physics.  E.g., in the 1960s 
and early 1970s, the situation in high-energy physics was very like what 
you describe for psychology.

John


On 01/28/2014 07:52 PM, Ping Li wrote:
>
> Hi John,
> In psychology, it's often the opposite -- when the theory (or model, in
> this case) and experiment don't agree, it's the theory that's to blame.
> Hence we have to "simulate the data", "replicate the empirical
> findings", and "match with empirical evidence" (phrases used in almost
> all cognitive modeling papers -- just finished another one myself)...
> That's why Brad pointed out it's so hard to publish modeling papers
> without corresponding experiments or other empirical data.
>
> Best,
> Ping
>
>
>   That's not the whole story.  For modern physics, a common happening is
> that when theory and experiment disagree, it is the experiment that is
> wrong, at least if the theory is well established.  (Faster-than-light
> neutrinos are only one example.)
>
>     John Collins