[From Bjorn Simonsen (2008.06.24, 17:10 EUST)]
From Dick Robertson,2008.06.23.1142CDT
Did anyone else see the article, "The End of Science?" in _Wired_July
2008?
I did read it at
The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete | WIRED .
I don't fall for the Pegabyte (20^50)bytes statistics.
I neither think it is correct saying "
Today companies like Google, which have grown up in an era of massively
abundant data, don't have to settle for wrong models. Indeed, they don't
have to settle for models at all."
Because it is at the same time said: "It forces us to view data
mathematically first and establish a context for it later." Just as we
have done in PCT since before 1973. When they establish a context later,
they articulate a theory or a model.
Many scientist have no theories, but hypothesises when they start new
research. If "No semantic or causal analysis is required." in Pegabyte
research, there are some thoughts or hypothesises.
I liked the section "This is a world where massive amounts of data and
applied mathematics replace every other tool that might be brought to
bear. Out with every theory of human behavior, from linguistics to
sociology. Forget taxonomy, ontology, and psychology. Who knows why
people do what they do? The point is they do it, and we can track and
measure it with unprecedented fidelity. With enough data, the numbers
speak for themselves."
But I think they have to express their mathematics in word when they are
going to explain their new world. And then they express their theory.
I agree that it is out with other theories than PCT describing human
behavior, from linguistics (Wittgenstein) to sosiology and psychology.
"Who knows why people do what they do?" is a PCT expression the way I
see it. And I read the last sentence above as if Pegabyte statistcs is a
cause effect way of thinking and not a control way of thinking.
This is the emperors new clotes again.
bjorn