Big data: Difference between revisions

57 bytes added ,  8 November 2022
no edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 24: Line 24:


===It is illiberal===
===It is illiberal===
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]] of everything: a transcendent ''truth''. This, in the [[JC]]’s view, is a profoundly illiberal idea: to be unable to accommodate pluralism is to ''deny'' of pluralism.
Second, in its [[reductionism]], in its funnelling of a dispersed population of ideas into an essential homogeneity, it speaks to the underlying belief in a [[grand unifying theory]] of everything: a simple set of organising rules, based upon a transcendent ''truth''. This, in the [[JC]]’s view, is a profoundly illiberal idea: to be unable to accommodate pluralism is to ''deny'' of pluralism.


It may be “true” that the richness of the universe boils down to a single simple algorithm — perhaps not [[Conway ’s Game of Life]], but maybe something winsomely similar — but if so, that we are in and of and ''part'' of the grand machine, and our trajectory through it is just as ineffably preordained — we are a subroutine — this means we cannot control, or know, what we cannot know, either we will attain certain knowledge of that algorithm, or we won't, but either way there's nothing to be done — so we might as well enjoy the illusion that there ''is'' control. Island if there is control, then we get to tell our stories —pluralistically plural — we don't know any better, we were going to do that anyway.
It may be “true” that the richness of the universe boils down to a single simple [[algorithm]] — perhaps not [[Conway’s Game of Life]], but maybe something winsomely similar — but if so, that we are in and of and ''part'' of the grand machine, and our trajectory through it is just as ineffably preordained — we are a subroutine — this means we cannot control, or know, what we cannot know, either we will attain certain knowledge of that algorithm, or we won't, but either way there's nothing to be done — so we might as well enjoy the illusion that there ''is'' control. Island if there is control, then we get to tell our stories —pluralistically plural — we don't know any better, we were going to do that anyway.


Reductionism is both illiberal and nosy: why are you even having this argument? Why do you care (except that you can't help yourself) — you’ve won anyway. What difference does it make, either way, who is right and who is wrong? This is a bad, fatalistic, negative, zero-sum disposition and, since you're arguing about it, you don't even buy it yourself.
Reductionism is both illiberal and nosy: why are you even having this argument? Why do you care (except that you can't help yourself) — you’ve won anyway. What difference does it make, either way, who is right and who is wrong? This is a bad, fatalistic, negative, zero-sum disposition and, since you're arguing about it, you don't even buy it yourself.