Comments on: In Defense of Mickey Mouse Science

By: The Scienceblogging Weekly (June 8th, 2012) | Techack | gadgets & technology

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 03:13:39 +0000

[...] In Defense of Mickey Mouse Science by Byron Jennings: …I suppose one could hook up the computers directly to the experiments and have them generate models, test the models against new observations and then modify the experimental apparatus without any human intervention. However, I am not sure that would be science. Science is ultimately a human activity and the models we produce are products of the human mind. It is not enough that the computer knows the answer. We want to have some feeling for the results, to understand them. Without the simple models, Mickey Mouse science, that would not be possible: the big news made ever so small… [...]

By: Mike Will

Mike Will — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:06:51 +0000

“I suppose one could hook up the computers directly to the experiments and have them generate models, test the models against new observations and then modify the experimental apparatus without any human intervention. However, I am not sure that would be science.”

Byron, you are either prescient or a member of the Association for Computing Machinery.

Savage, N. (2012). “Automating Scientific Discovery”.
Communications of the ACM, 55(5), 9-11.

By: A KISS for communicating science | Scientopia Guests' Blog

A KISS for communicating science | Scientopia Guests' Blog — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:26:37 +0000

[...] can learn from this maxim too. Not only is there something to be said for reducing complexity in research but for bringing simplicity t0 how we communicate [...]

By: christophe nicolas

christophe nicolas — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:08:37 +0000

Good analysis. To progress, we need to experiment, always, and remember to reflect on the assumptions. If you can read French, send me your address. I send you a paper on “hidden variables of relativity”