Richard Twitchard writes essays on software development, process, and system dynamics, questioning data-driven approaches in favor of good arguments.
HN links it in discussions of explanation and evidence in software, where commenters push back on how data relates to good theories.
>A simple answer to this is that good explanations are hard to vary.
But the "hard to vary" explanations were built up from observing data of smashing particles. E.g. from your link:
- Frank Wilczek describes hard-to-vary-ness as follows "A theory begins to be perfect if any change makes it worse." He explains further using the Standard Model as an example of a hard-to-vary explanation: Too many gluons! But each of the eight colour gluons is there for a purpose. Together, they fulfil complete symmetry among the color charges. [...] No fudge factors or tweaks are available.
This author's blog post about "data" also links to his previous post[1] about "science" leading one astray from "good arguments" is the opposite of "hard to vary" explanations.
Here's the reason for the disconnect: The author is using the adjective "good" in his idiosyncratic way to describe the type of arguments that depend more on "storytelling" and "intrinsic motivation" -- rather than empirical science/data. Excerpt:
- >And here is a secret: in the natural sciences themselves, storytelling and bare conjecture are far more important modes of persuasion than data-based empirical argument, anyway. [...]
- >A good example of the sort of argument I think is helpful is A Philosophy of Software Design. Ousterhout defines his terms clearly, accompanies his definitions and claims with illustrative examples, and tells an occasional story. You, the reader, are free to evaluate each claim based on…
Fwiw the teaching of the church is that (today's) AI isn't at a human level because human intelligence is something that we experience whereas artificial intelligence seems to be merely a sophistication in performing tasks.
This week's encyclical didn't go into this. Last year's "Doctrinal Note" (less authoritative) did though: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20250128_antiqua-et-nova_en.html
and I did a write-up on it here: https://twitchard.github.io/posts/2025-06-28-the-catholic-church-vs-the-turing-test.html