@driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 1 year agoanswer = sum(n) / len(n)lemmy.eco.brimagemessage-square127fedilinkarrow-up1886arrow-down129
arrow-up1857arrow-down1imageanswer = sum(n) / len(n)lemmy.eco.br@driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 1 year agomessage-square127fedilink
minus-square@AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglish3•1 year agoI got you. Link to a blog post by the paper’s author that discusses the paper (it has many links to interesting stuff. I was skeptical of it when I first found it, given that the one line TL;DR of the paper is “black-boxing is good actually”, but it thoroughly challenged my beliefs): https://scatter.wordpress.com/2022/02/16/guest-post-black-boxes-and-wishful-intelligibility/ Link to a SciDB version of the academic paper (SciHub is dead, long live SciDB): https://annas-archive.gs/scidb/10.1086/715222 (DiMarco M. Wishful Intelligibility, Black Boxes, and Epidemiological Explanation. Philosophy of Science. 2021;88(5):824-834. doi:10.1086/715222)
I got you.
Link to a blog post by the paper’s author that discusses the paper (it has many links to interesting stuff. I was skeptical of it when I first found it, given that the one line TL;DR of the paper is “black-boxing is good actually”, but it thoroughly challenged my beliefs): https://scatter.wordpress.com/2022/02/16/guest-post-black-boxes-and-wishful-intelligibility/
Link to a SciDB version of the academic paper (SciHub is dead, long live SciDB): https://annas-archive.gs/scidb/10.1086/715222
(DiMarco M. Wishful Intelligibility, Black Boxes, and Epidemiological Explanation. Philosophy of Science. 2021;88(5):824-834. doi:10.1086/715222)
thank you!