The way I’ve heard it used is to describe activities that give you the illusion of understanding a complex subject. Examples would be Malcolm Gladwell’s books, or the high school student who thinks they understand quantum mechanics after reading The Elegant Universe.
So that usage wouldn’t fit pure maths, since we seem to generally agree that pure mathematicians have a true understanding of their fields, even if we don’t agree on the value of said fields.
Makes sense. It might be useful to score models based on how much they improve your predictions, e.g. Newtonian physics is not completely accurate but improves my predictions substantially vs not knowing any physics.
The way I’ve heard it used is to describe activities that give you the illusion of understanding a complex subject. Examples would be Malcolm Gladwell’s books, or the high school student who thinks they understand quantum mechanics after reading The Elegant Universe. So that usage wouldn’t fit pure maths, since we seem to generally agree that pure mathematicians have a true understanding of their fields, even if we don’t agree on the value of said fields.
Makes sense. It might be useful to score models based on how much they improve your predictions, e.g. Newtonian physics is not completely accurate but improves my predictions substantially vs not knowing any physics.