Pure signal.

The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete.

“The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete.”

Glib hip pop bullshit.

I think it is closer to: “There are so many people trying to write
about science without taking the time to understand it, and so many
people who want to read about science who don’t want to take the time
to understand it that the market could be monetized much more
efficiently if we just took the stumbling block (science itself) out
of the picture.”

Because what people really want are those “Wow that is neat!” moments,
which they can get from CGI, and they want to feel important, which
they can get by washing and sorting their glass bottles and reducing
their carbon footprint and buying “Free Tibet” stickers at rock
concerts where Al Gore tells them they have the power to change the

Yes computers change the way science is done — but you have to
understand what an experiment is, and what a computer is before you
can say something meaningful about that change.


July 12, 2008 - Posted by | People who fucking Suck

1 Comment »

  1. It just sounds like they believe they can replace hypothesis testing with an avalanche of statistics.

    They want to throw out the human interference of model-making and simply trust in the value of the statistical Law of Large Numbers.

    They think that if they have alotta lotta numbers, that they have them all. The data set is so large it appears to be complete. The only thing left to do is figure out the connections between the bits of data.

    That will take some value judgements… Some theorizing, if you will.

    Oh, SHIT! We’re back to the scientific method again. Verifiable results, falsifiable hypotheses. Do this, get that, every time…

    In this article it is spoken of the science and the methods; of data clouds and correlations; of theories, hypotheses, laws, and many other things which may or may not exist.

    It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them.

    Comment by chuk | August 11, 2008 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: