Some made authoritative predictions that turned out to be wildly wrong—then updated their theories in the wrong direction. They became even more convinced of the original beliefs that had led them astray. The best forecasters, by contrast, view their own ideas as hypotheses in need of testing.
That claim can now be viewed in the context of Michael Snyder’s forthcoming presentation on “Big Data and Health” and Pfaff et al., Tinbergen’s challenge for the neuroscience of behavior.
… deep longitudinal profiling using advanced technologies can lead to actionable health discoveries and… information relevant for precision health.
Pfaff et al., (2019)
“hypothesis-free, discovery driven” research yielding big data, as mentioned above, will need the consortia with accompanying accommodations mentioned above.
See, for ages 10+
For comparison to what students age 10+ can and have learned from playing games that link the creation of subatomic particles to healthy longevity via cytosis, huge consortia and Big Data led to claims about the imaginary imagery of the black hole. Those claims failed to link the creation of UV light to constraints on the formation of new galaxies.
Watch as Michael Snyder continues down the path that Donald W. Pfaff and others took when they linked Tinbergen’s claims from bird-watching and butterfly collecting to the neuroscience of biophysically constrained biodiversity without the constraints that link the creation of UV light to biophysically constrained viral latency.
For comparison, see the thinly-veiled predictions from these experts who started with the creation of energy and presciently linked it to all biodiversity.
The notion has gained some currency that the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is “bird watching” or “butterfly collecting.” Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!
The synthesis of RNA in isolated thymus nuclei is ATP dependent.