Attempts to abstract and study machine learning are within some given framework or mathematical model. It turns out that all of these models are significantly flawed for the purpose of studying machine learning. I’ve created a table (below) outlining the major flaws in some common models of machine learning.
The point here is not simply “woe unto us”. There are several implications which seem important.
 The multitude of models is a point of continuing confusion. It is common for people to learn about machine learning within one framework which often becomes there “home framework” through which they attempt to filter all machine learning. (Have you met people who can only think in terms of kernels? Only via Bayes Law? Only via PAC Learning?) Explicitly understanding the existence of these other frameworks can help resolve the confusion. This is particularly important when reviewing and particularly important for students.
 Algorithms which conform to multiple approaches can have substantial value. “I don’t really understand it yet, because I only understand it one way”. Reinterpretation alone is not the goal—we want algorithmic guidance.
 We need to remain constantly open to new mathematical models of machine learning. It’s common to forget the flaws of the model that you are most familiar with in evaluating other models while the flaws of new models get exaggerated. The best way to avoid this is simply education.
 The value of theory alone is more limited than many theoreticians may be aware. Theories need to be tested to see if they correctly predict the underlying phenomena.
Here is a summary what is wrong with various frameworks for learning. To avoid being entirely negative, I added a column about what’s right as well.
Name  Methodology  What’s right  What’s wrong 
Bayesian Learning  You specify a prior probability distribution over datamakers, P(datamaker) then use Bayes law to find a posterior P(datamakerx). True Bayesians integrate over the posterior to make predictions while many simply use the world with largest posterior directly.  Handles the small data limit. Very flexible. Interpolates to engineering. 

Graphical/generative Models  Sometimes Bayesian and sometimes not. Datamakers are typically assumed to be IID samples of fixed or varying length data. Datamakers are represented graphically with conditional independencies encoded in the graph. For some graphs, fast algorithms for making (or approximately making) predictions exist.  Relative to pure Bayesian systems, this approach is sometimes computationally tractable. More importantly, the graph language is natural, which aids prior elicitation. 

Convex Loss Optimization  Specify a loss function related to the worldimposed loss fucntion which is convex on some parametric predictive system. Optimize the parametric predictive system to find the global optima.  Mathematically clean solutions where computational tractability is partly taken into account. Relatively automatable. 

Gradient Descent  Specify an architecture with free parameters and use gradient descent with respect to data to tune the parameters.  Relatively computationally tractable due to (a) modularity of gradient descent (b) directly optimizing the quantity you want to predict. 

Kernelbased learning  You chose a kernel K(x,x’) between datapoints that satisfies certain conditions, and then use it as a measure of similarity when learning.  People often find the specification of a similarity function between objects a natural way to incorporate prior information for machine learning problems. Algorithms (like SVMs) for training are reasonably practical—O(n^{2}) for instance.  Specification of the kernel is not easy for some applications (this is another example of prior elicitation). O(n^{2}) is not efficient enough when there is much data. 
Boosting  You create a learning algorithm that may be imperfect but which has some predictive edge, then apply it repeatedly in various ways to make a final predictor.  A focus on getting something that works quickly is natural. This approach is relatively automated and (hence) easy to apply for beginners.  The boosting framework tells you nothing about how to build that initial algorithm. The weak learning assumption becomes violated at some point in the iterative process. 
Online Learning with Experts  You make many base predictors and then a master algorithm automatically switches between the use of these predictors so as to minimize regret.  This is an effective automated method to extract performance from a pool of predictors.  Computational intractability can be a problem. This approach lives and dies on the effectiveness of the experts, but it provides little or no guidance in their construction. 
Learning Reductions  You solve complex machine learning problems by reducing them to wellstudied base problems in a robust manner.  The reductions approach can yield highly automated learning algorithms.  The existence of an algorithm satisfying reduction guarantees is not sufficient to guarantee success. Reductions tell you little or nothing about the design of the base learning algorithm. 
PAC Learning  You assume that samples are drawn IID from an unknown distribution D. You think of learning as finding a nearbest hypothesis amongst a given set of hypotheses in a computationally tractable manner.  The focus on computation is pretty rightheaded, because we are ultimately limited by what we can compute.  There are not many substantial positive results, particularly when D is noisy. Data isn’t IID in practice anyways. 
Statistical Learning Theory  You assume that samples are drawn IID from an unknown distribution D. You think of learning as figuring out the number of samples required to distinguish a nearbest hypothesis from a set of hypotheses.  There are substantially more positive results than for PAC Learning, and there are a few examples of practical algorithms directly motivated by this analysis.  The data is not IID. Ignorance of computational difficulties often results in difficulty of application. More importantly, the bounds are often loose (sometimes to the point of vacuousness). 
Decision tree learning  Learning is a process of cutting up the input space and assigning predictions to pieces of the space.  Decision tree algorithms are well automated and can be quite fast.  There are learning problems which can not be solved by decision trees, but which are solvable. It’s common to find that other approaches give you a bit more performance. A theoretical grounding for many choices in these algorithms is lacking. 
Algorithmic complexity  Learning is about finding a program which correctly predicts the outputs given the inputs.  Any reasonable problem is learnable with a number of samples related to the description length of the program.  The theory literally suggests solving halting problems to solve machine learning. 
RL, MDP learning  Learning is about finding and acting according to a near optimal policy in an unknown Markov Decision Process.  We can learn and act with an amount of summed regret related to O(SA) where S is the number of states and A is the number of actions per state.  Has anyone counted the number of states in real world problems? We can’t afford to wait that long. Discretizing the states creates a POMDP (see below). In the real world, we often have to deal with a POMDP anyways. 
RL, POMDP learning  Learning is about finding and acting according to a near optimaly policy in a Partially Observed Markov Decision Process  In a sense, we’ve made no assumptions, so algorithms have wide applicability.  All known algorithms scale badly with the number of hidden states. 
This set is incomplete of course, but it forms a starting point for understanding what’s out there. (Please fill in the what/pro/con of anything I missed.)