Keeping close track in analytical process. I mean analysis is in the brain not necessarily just in the computer

Berkeley, Sunday, May 31, 2020, 12:41 AM

I spent about a day checking the usage of computer through history. Even more, if I count for my self-taught history of computer programming. I cannot invest such as amount of time outside of my duties, but the purpose was to find purpose, meaning, deeper understanding of usage of computers. Depending the area of studies we apply our intellect, the only word of caution and my reflection after this invented time on sharpening my tool is that our mission, as people in the world, is to keep clear our analytical skills and so its tool. There is not such as thing of producing a study or an analysis, with an automatic tool, which might be ok if it was developed by someone else, but the danger remains if the procedure is not that clear.

I guess that there are different kinds of journals, and so ones that are more specialized just in method, and other more multidisciplinary focuses more in the interpretation of the results and keep the methods as the last section, optional for the reader.

I, however, believe that the methods are, of course, the central core. They most be accessible. With the peak of numerical methods, packages, and libraries, we still need to have the control of what we are ordering the computer to perform. The analytical tool regards still to the person not the computer.

Further, while it is hard to criticize decisions on which rapid development of computer played a roll, keeping a bit far from the expert view or the calculation processes, and so determination decisions based on the results. I said hard to criticize the following example, without having leaving in the time, and without knowing all the context of what if not doing, what were the dangers, what were the risks at stake, what were the thinking of the times, but which are the inevitable wars? https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/timeline