Experience by itself teaches nothing… Without theory, experience has no meaning. Without theory, one has no questions to ask. Hence, without theory, there is no learning.
This is false. It is false in theory and it is false in practice. Learning can occur without theory. I spent years researching and developing systems to do just that. And on the practical side (actually human psychology) learning frequently—even predominately—occurs without theory. Abstract theoretical reasoning is a special case of ‘learning’ and one that is comparatively recent and under-developed in the observed universe.
Learning can occur without theory. I spent years researching and developing systems to do just that.
If you’re talking about unsupervised classification algorithms, don’t they kinda make their theory as they learn? At least, in the “model,” or “lossy compression” sense of “theory.” Finding features that cluster well in a data set is forming a theory about that data set.
Theory answers the question “what should I observe”am, .ir rather it answers it internally. On the absence of theory, a learning entity needs to spoon fed data.
Theory answers the question “what should I observe”am, .ir rather it answers it internally. On the absence of theory, a learning entity needs to spoon fed data.
For example, “having eyes” answers that question, having eyes isn’t a theory.
Theory is still present. Just because it is not explicitly stated does not mean there is no theory. Abstract theoretical reasoning is learning. The distinction that you are drawing, is just between well stated theory and non-stated implicit theory. (Actually, I suppose it could be viewed as more of a sliding scale depending on how well its explained, how obvious the inferences are etc.,)
Theory is still present. Just because it is not explicitly stated does not mean there is no theory.
Theories need not be explicit but the lack of explicit theory does not imply that an implicit theory exists or that learning does not occur.
Abstract theoretical reasoning is learning.
One could redefine the term ‘learning’ such that this claim (and the quote) is tautological. Doing so would be a terrible way to carve reality.
The distinction that you are drawing, is just between well stated theory and non-stated implicit theory.
No it isn’t. The world isn’t that neat. Sometimes the theory just isn’t there. It would be possible to create a theory that approximates the physical process. But that doesn’t mean it exists.
Can you tell me why it is bad way to carve reality?
For the same reason it is not helpful to redefine carburetters as ‘car stuff’.
Abstract theoretical reasoning is different from kinds of learning without theory. It’s a remarkable, versatile development that is possessed by comparatively few of the learning systems that are known to exist. That’s not a difference to ignore.
Right. So the difference is probably a technical one.Actually, I’m not sure that I’ve fully understood your point.
Nevertheless, I dont think Edward Deming was talking about the same thing you are. The basic point that he was trying to make is that you need to have some kind of mental model in the light of which you need to analyse your experience.
I’m guessing that’s about the limits of your knowledge of ‘car stuff’. Mostly because the word is ‘carburetor’. :-)
No (read the first sentence. Also, ‘Aluminium’, ‘favour’, ‘kilometers’, ice melts at 0 degrees (or maybe 273.15, but definitely not 32) and a sane incarceration rate per 100,000 population is well under 200 in a stable, established democracy.
Damn, yes. I also spell “colour” incorrectly most of the time, ever since I discovered that I could change Nibbles and Gorillas on my 286 by fiddling with the blue and white words.
Huh. I thought I was familiar with all the American English spelling distinctions. (I checked that Google autocorrected it anyway, but apparently it was too smart for me.) My mistake.
Huh. I thought I was familiar with all the American English spelling distinctions. (I checked that Google autocorrected it anyway, but apparently it was too smart for me.) My mistake.
I’ve never had cause to write the term down myself. If I recall, I copy and pasted it directly from that wikipedia article, choosing which of the excessive number of location appropriate spelling variants was most aesthetically pleasing to me at the time.
Incidentally, I don’t have an excessive amounts of practical car knowledge. I’ve had some interest in the theory behind four stroke internal combustion engines but the specific quirks of the parts that can be seen when looking under the hood of a specific vehicle bore me senseless. But I do know quite a lot about “Cams”, my interest being piqued by linguistic affiliation and the desire to understand what on earth the “Camshaft” references my older team-mates used as apparently benign encouragement.
Dogs and humans both learn to walk, run, and jump well through experience, by doing them. To me it is implausible that a one year old human has a theory of walking, running, and jumping which she is using to gain expertise from the experience.
But as unlikely as it seems to me that a one year old human has a theory, it seems even less likely that a few-weeks old puppy dog has a theory that she is using to gain expertise from experience.
I think there is a kind of learning which needs a theory to happen, but I think that is just one kind of learning.
At this point you have to ask what you mean by “theory” and “learning”.
The original method of learning was “those that did it right didn’t die”—i.e. natural selection. Those that didn’t die have a pattern of behavior (thanks to a random mutation) that didn’t exist in previous generations, which makes them more successful gene spreaders, which passes that information on to future generations.
There is nothing in there that requires one to ask any questions at all. However, considering that there is information gained based on past experience, I think the definition of learning could be stretched to cover it. Obviously there is no individual learning, but there is definitely species learning going on there.
Since the vast majority of creatures that use this method of learning as their primary method of learning don’t even have brains, it seems obvious that there is no theory there. However, if we stretch the definition of theory to include any pattern of information that attempts to reflect reality (regardless of how well it does that job), well then even the lowliest bacteria have theories about how their world is supposed to work, and act accordingly.
That same broader definition of “theory” would cover wedrifid’s theoryless algorithms as well, as all you care about are patterns of information attempting to reflect reality, and they certainly have those.
All that said, the point of the quote is that in order for you as an individual to learn, then you as an individual must have an underlying theory of how things are supposed to be that can be challenged when faced with reality, in order to learn.
I have no idea if it’s actually true, I’m no psychologist or human learning expert or anything even remotely related, but it sounds like it has to be true even under the strict sense. It seems like it’s practically a tautology to me. Even wedfrid’s algorithms have a starting framework that attempts to reflect reality, however simplistic it may be. The algorithm itself is the theory there; it didn’t come from nothing.
The distinction that you are drawing, is just between well stated theory and non-stated implicit theory.
At a certain point your arguments become circular. If you define learning as something that requires a theory, and then you “find” unstated theories wherever you find learning...
Hahahaha.. No, it wasnt learning (at least not learning about the real world). Sorry, the referred statement in your comment was a poorly worded one on my part.
The point I was trying to make was that I cant seem to envision learning, without having some theory (even if not well formulated) in your head. There has to be some moving parts (or some , that lead to a difference in anticipated outcomes and that should be enough to be fairly called a theory.
It has however since been pointed out to me that I might be making a tautological definition of the word “theory”. That may be so, and I’m kind of waiting for an explanation as to why that could be a bad idea. (I am of the belief that the more you identify the theory behind a phenomenon, the easier it would be to understand it and work around it/with it.
This is false. It is false in theory and it is false in practice. Learning can occur without theory. I spent years researching and developing systems to do just that. And on the practical side (actually human psychology) learning frequently—even predominately—occurs without theory. Abstract theoretical reasoning is a special case of ‘learning’ and one that is comparatively recent and under-developed in the observed universe.
If you’re talking about unsupervised classification algorithms, don’t they kinda make their theory as they learn? At least, in the “model,” or “lossy compression” sense of “theory.” Finding features that cluster well in a data set is forming a theory about that data set.
You still need a theory, a.k.a., a prior on the kind of data you expect to be compressing. Otherwise you run into the No Free Lunch Theorem.
Theory answers the question “what should I observe”am, .ir rather it answers it internally. On the absence of theory, a learning entity needs to spoon fed data.
For example, “having eyes” answers that question, having eyes isn’t a theory.
Theory is still present. Just because it is not explicitly stated does not mean there is no theory. Abstract theoretical reasoning is learning. The distinction that you are drawing, is just between well stated theory and non-stated implicit theory. (Actually, I suppose it could be viewed as more of a sliding scale depending on how well its explained, how obvious the inferences are etc.,)
Theories need not be explicit but the lack of explicit theory does not imply that an implicit theory exists or that learning does not occur.
One could redefine the term ‘learning’ such that this claim (and the quote) is tautological. Doing so would be a terrible way to carve reality.
No it isn’t. The world isn’t that neat. Sometimes the theory just isn’t there. It would be possible to create a theory that approximates the physical process. But that doesn’t mean it exists.
Can you tell me why it is bad way to carve reality?
For the same reason it is not helpful to redefine carburetters as ‘car stuff’.
Abstract theoretical reasoning is different from kinds of learning without theory. It’s a remarkable, versatile development that is possessed by comparatively few of the learning systems that are known to exist. That’s not a difference to ignore.
Right. So the difference is probably a technical one.Actually, I’m not sure that I’ve fully understood your point.
Nevertheless, I dont think Edward Deming was talking about the same thing you are. The basic point that he was trying to make is that you need to have some kind of mental model in the light of which you need to analyse your experience.
I’m guessing that’s about the limits of your knowledge of ‘car stuff’. Mostly because the word is ‘carburetor’. :-)
No (read the first sentence. Also, ‘Aluminium’, ‘favour’, ‘kilometers’, ice melts at 0 degrees (or maybe 273.15, but definitely not 32) and a sane incarceration rate per 100,000 population is well under 200 in a stable, established democracy.
Surely you mean kilometres? :-)
Damn, yes. I also spell “colour” incorrectly most of the time, ever since I discovered that I could change Nibbles and Gorillas on my 286 by fiddling with the blue and white words.
Huh. I thought I was familiar with all the American English spelling distinctions. (I checked that Google autocorrected it anyway, but apparently it was too smart for me.) My mistake.
I’ve never had cause to write the term down myself. If I recall, I copy and pasted it directly from that wikipedia article, choosing which of the excessive number of location appropriate spelling variants was most aesthetically pleasing to me at the time.
Incidentally, I don’t have an excessive amounts of practical car knowledge. I’ve had some interest in the theory behind four stroke internal combustion engines but the specific quirks of the parts that can be seen when looking under the hood of a specific vehicle bore me senseless. But I do know quite a lot about “Cams”, my interest being piqued by linguistic affiliation and the desire to understand what on earth the “Camshaft” references my older team-mates used as apparently benign encouragement.
Dogs and humans both learn to walk, run, and jump well through experience, by doing them. To me it is implausible that a one year old human has a theory of walking, running, and jumping which she is using to gain expertise from the experience.
But as unlikely as it seems to me that a one year old human has a theory, it seems even less likely that a few-weeks old puppy dog has a theory that she is using to gain expertise from experience.
I think there is a kind of learning which needs a theory to happen, but I think that is just one kind of learning.
At this point you have to ask what you mean by “theory” and “learning”.
The original method of learning was “those that did it right didn’t die”—i.e. natural selection. Those that didn’t die have a pattern of behavior (thanks to a random mutation) that didn’t exist in previous generations, which makes them more successful gene spreaders, which passes that information on to future generations.
There is nothing in there that requires one to ask any questions at all. However, considering that there is information gained based on past experience, I think the definition of learning could be stretched to cover it. Obviously there is no individual learning, but there is definitely species learning going on there.
Since the vast majority of creatures that use this method of learning as their primary method of learning don’t even have brains, it seems obvious that there is no theory there. However, if we stretch the definition of theory to include any pattern of information that attempts to reflect reality (regardless of how well it does that job), well then even the lowliest bacteria have theories about how their world is supposed to work, and act accordingly.
That same broader definition of “theory” would cover wedrifid’s theoryless algorithms as well, as all you care about are patterns of information attempting to reflect reality, and they certainly have those.
All that said, the point of the quote is that in order for you as an individual to learn, then you as an individual must have an underlying theory of how things are supposed to be that can be challenged when faced with reality, in order to learn.
I have no idea if it’s actually true, I’m no psychologist or human learning expert or anything even remotely related, but it sounds like it has to be true even under the strict sense. It seems like it’s practically a tautology to me. Even wedfrid’s algorithms have a starting framework that attempts to reflect reality, however simplistic it may be. The algorithm itself is the theory there; it didn’t come from nothing.
Which makes it a practically useless observation, doesn’t it?
Pretty much.
At a certain point your arguments become circular. If you define learning as something that requires a theory, and then you “find” unstated theories wherever you find learning...
So let’s take theology, for example the medieval catholic one. There certainly was a lot of abstract theoretical reasoning there. Was it learning?
Hahahaha.. No, it wasnt learning (at least not learning about the real world). Sorry, the referred statement in your comment was a poorly worded one on my part.
The point I was trying to make was that I cant seem to envision learning, without having some theory (even if not well formulated) in your head. There has to be some moving parts (or some , that lead to a difference in anticipated outcomes and that should be enough to be fairly called a theory.
It has however since been pointed out to me that I might be making a tautological definition of the word “theory”. That may be so, and I’m kind of waiting for an explanation as to why that could be a bad idea. (I am of the belief that the more you identify the theory behind a phenomenon, the easier it would be to understand it and work around it/with it.