On what terms can we even begin to understand, let alone discover?

———————————————————————————————————

I’ve never been one to focus nearly as much as I should on design, nor the visible beauty of anything at hand. Could this be plainly observed by the very nature of this website? Under what pretense could a slob like myself be fit to digress my beliefs in this state? Is it juvenile to define the direction these writings could take by simply giving you the slope formula right out of the gate?

$$ m = \frac{y - y_1}{x - x_1} $$

Perhaps, like the slope formula, the beauty of this site lies not in its initial coordinates, but in the direction it dares to take. Perhaps the answer lies not in the design, but in the audacity to question.

As a question in and of itself, what exactly can we question? While we could question if gravity on earth is really indicative of the figure \(-9.8 \ \mathrm{m/s}^2\), or if time truly flows forward and not simply as a construct of human perception, would questioning such triviality be fair game to advancement and discovery? At some point, one has to argue that reiterating our current scientific understandings should suffice, until compelling enough evidence arises to prove otherwise.

With that in mind, what exactly can we use as priors to understand and validate ideas presented in new scientific findings? The truth is that no one can understand and compress all of the necessary prerequisite’s to validate and prove a non-obvious, fresh discovery. This brings us to a new point in our pursuit for understanding: sources.

Sources for our further pursuit in understanding should follow 3 rules when validating new research:

1. Material should come from peer-reviewed journals or conferences. This ensures that the validation process for our prerequisite material has already been checked by academic standards and is worthy for our consideration.
2. Each material should be up to date, especially within the fields of computer science, machine learning, and mathematics. This ensures that our material is current and recent.
3. Direct relevancy to the fresh discovery, ensuring our material is valid for our case.