[wuj]

This tool reminds me that the human body functions much like a black box. While physics can be modeled with equations and constraints, biology is inherently probabilistic and unpredictable. We verify the efficacy of a medicine by observing its outcomes: the medicine is the input, and the changes in symptoms are the output. However, we cannot model what happens in between, as we cannot definitively prove that the medicine affects only its intended targets. In many ways, much of what we understand about medicine is based on observing these black-box processes, and this tool helps to model that complexity.

[a_bonobo]

Classic essay in this vein:

>Can a biologist fix a radio? — Or, what I learned while studying apoptosis

https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/pdf/S1535-6108(02)00133-2.p...

>However, if the radio has tunable components, such as those found in my old radio (indicated by yellow arrows in Figure 2, inset) and in all live cells and organisms, the outcome will not be so promising. Indeed, the radio may not work because several components are not tuned properly, which is not reflected in their appearance or their connections. What is the probability that this radio will be fixed by our biologists? I might be overly pessimistic, but a textbook example of the monkey that can, in principle, type a Burns poem comes to mind. In other words, the radio will not play music unless that lucky chance meets a prepared mind.

[bamboozled]

I’d say it’s always been the case for medicine, when people first used medicines, the intention was never to fully understand what happens, just save a life, eliminate or reduce symptoms.

Now we’ve built explainable systems like computers and software, we try to overlay that onto everything and it might not work.

To quote Alan Watts, humans like to try square out wiggly systems because we’re not great and understanding wiggles.