The important part of his argument is in the second paragraph, and I agree because by and large, pretty much everything we know about science and casuality, at least in the beginning for AI is on trusting the scientific papers and experts. Virtually no knowledge is given by experimentation, but instead by trusting the papers, experts and books.
That might be a crux here, since I view a lot of our knowledge of causality and physics essentially we take on trust, so that we don’t need to repeat experimentation.
The important part of his argument is in the second paragraph, and I agree because by and large, pretty much everything we know about science and casuality, at least in the beginning for AI is on trusting the scientific papers and experts. Virtually no knowledge is given by experimentation, but instead by trusting the papers, experts and books.
I disagree; I think we have intuitive theories of causality (like intuitive physics) that are very helpful for human learning and intelligence.
That might be a crux here, since I view a lot of our knowledge of causality and physics essentially we take on trust, so that we don’t need to repeat experimentation.