Big data: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "The obsession with big data has two implications: Firstly it expresses a preference for the aggregate and the mean over the outlier, the individual, the unique or extraordin..." Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The obsession with big data has two implications: | {{a|devil|}}The obsession with big data has two implications: | ||
Firstly it expresses a preference for the aggregate and the mean over the outlier, the individual, the unique or extraordinary. It is to cater for the average. It is to prefer the mediocre for its weight of numbers over the genius and its isolated vision. As surely as the ugliest man killed God, so did data kill the superman. The ''will to power'' is defeated by the million-strong dull blades of the ''will to entropy''. | Firstly it expresses a preference for the aggregate and the mean over the outlier, the individual, the unique or extraordinary. It is to cater for the average. It is to prefer the mediocre for its weight of numbers over the genius and its isolated vision. As surely as the ugliest man killed God, so did data kill the superman. The ''will to power'' is defeated by the million-strong dull blades of the ''will to entropy''. | ||
Second in its reductionism, in its funnelling of a dispersed population into an essential homogeneity, it speaks to the underlying belief in a grand unifying theory:a transcendent ''truth''. Its non-accommodation of pluralism is a denial of pluralism. | Second in its reductionism, in its funnelling of a dispersed population into an essential homogeneity, it speaks to the underlying belief in a grand unifying theory:a transcendent ''truth''. Its non-accommodation of pluralism is a denial of pluralism. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[In God we trust, all others must bring data]] | |||
Revision as of 10:57, 29 August 2020
|
The obsession with big data has two implications:
Firstly it expresses a preference for the aggregate and the mean over the outlier, the individual, the unique or extraordinary. It is to cater for the average. It is to prefer the mediocre for its weight of numbers over the genius and its isolated vision. As surely as the ugliest man killed God, so did data kill the superman. The will to power is defeated by the million-strong dull blades of the will to entropy.
Second in its reductionism, in its funnelling of a dispersed population into an essential homogeneity, it speaks to the underlying belief in a grand unifying theory:a transcendent truth. Its non-accommodation of pluralism is a denial of pluralism.