The Jolly Contrarian

Big data: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Big data (view source)

Revision as of 06:12, 24 April 2023

2,926 bytes added ,  24 April 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|systems|}}{{quote|As at the time of its analysis, all data is from the past.  
{{a|systems|}}{{quote|As at the time of its analysis, [[all data is from the past]].  
:—[[Roger Martin]]}}
:—[[Roger Martin]]}}
{{Quote|''Turkey'': “I have transformed myself into a data-driven business. All my data — and I’ve got reams of the stuff — tells me that every morning I shall be fed at 9 am on the dot. Aha! Here comes the farmer, right on time! I wonder if I’ll get a special treat because it is Christmas!”
{{Quote|''Turkey'': “I have transformed myself into a data-driven business. All my data — and I’ve got reams of the stuff — tells me that every morning I shall be fed at 9 am on the dot. Aha! Here comes the farmer, right on time! I wonder if I’ll get a special treat because it is Christmas!”
Line 5: Line 5:
''Charlotte (spinning web)'': Ummm}}
''Charlotte (spinning web)'': Ummm}}


{{Quote|The final triumph of [[correlation]] over [[causation]].
: — {{buchstein}} (''attrib.'')}}


Beware an over-commitment to [[data]] analytics:   
Beware an over-commitment to [[data]] analytics:   
Line 24: Line 26:


===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''. If so, one is justified in suppressing any description which is at variance with the one true path, purely on grounds of ''efficiency''. Why waste time and energy, and divert our people from the chosen path, by humouring false explanations? 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, it is also true that we are in and of and ''part'' of that grand machine. Our trajectory through universal design-space is just as ineffably preordained — we are but a deterministic subroutine — which means we cannot control, change or even know, what we do not know: we are as assuredly in the hands of cruel mechanical fate, as wanton boys are to the gods: either we will attain certain knowledge of that algorithm, and wake up into a glorious Singularity of cosmic consciousness — 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. And if we do, against expectation, turn out to have control, then we get to tell our stories —pluralistically plural — if we didn’t, well, no harm trying: we weren’t to know any better, we were doomed to do it anyway.
 
We can see here that [[reductionism]] is not just illiberal but ''nosy'': if you are right, why are you even ''having'' this argument? (except that you can't help yourself) — why do you ''care''? 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 bothering to argue about it, it sounds like you don’t even buy it yourself.
 
You can’t have it both ways. You are either strapped to your rail, a chimpanzee in a rocket ship, in which case shut up already, or you aren't.
 
But while you move through ''It’s A Small World'', bound and gagged on your rails of destiny, let me sing.
 
{{Quote|
Anyone who believes in conspiracy theories has obviously never tried to organise a surprise party.
:—Anon}}
 
Doesn’t the very idea that all this freedom, variability and randomness that we apprehend throughout all of creation is an illusion — seem rather ''neat''?
 
There are plenty of things — most things — in creation that seem deterministic and play no such tricks on us: the way a shadow falls and light reflects, as you pass under streetlights. All the causal regularities of the physical world that allow ships to sail, planes to fly, and satellites to orbit the world, and that deny sperm whales and petunias to materialise in orbital space.  Most of the world really seems as deterministic ii apparently is. It would certainly be odd if something that wasn’t deterministic nonetheless behaved as if it were. Wouldn't that be odd? But is it any odder that something that ''is'' deterministic behaves as if it is ''not''? And does this by the dint of the same regularity that casts shadows and propels cellular mitosis?
 
What an exceedingly clever trick to trace every possible voluntary movement to make it feel willed, when in fact every molecule is strung upon a causal wire.
 
Isn't that the greatest conspiracy that there ever was? Isn't that is fantastical as God?
 
Does not [[Occam’s razor]] come down on the pragmatists side?


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.
===It is noisy===
===It is noisy===
Thirdly, to embrace all the data you can find is to degrade the [[signal-to-noise ratio]]. Even if you buy into the incoherent [[reductionist]] idea that the “signal” is some kind of transcendent truth, by industrialising your data, you risk burying it and if you don’t — if like we pluralists you see ''any'' signal as not just a suitable narrative for your present purposes, the more data you gather, the more possible narratives — conflicting narratives; [[incommensurable]] narratives — you will have. Now this is, for a pluralist, is a good thing: every narrative is a tool in your workshop, the more you have the better you are equipped to deal with the [[unknown unknown]]s our [[complex]] world will surely throw at us — but that tends ''not'' to be what big data disciples are after.  
Thirdly, to embrace all the data you can find is to degrade the [[signal-to-noise ratio]]. Even if you buy into the incoherent [[reductionist]] idea that the “signal” is some kind of transcendent truth, by industrialising your data, you risk burying it and if you don’t — if like we pluralists you see ''any'' signal as not just a suitable narrative for your present purposes, the more data you gather, the more possible narratives — conflicting narratives; [[incommensurable]] narratives — you will have. Now this is, for a pluralist, is a good thing: every narrative is a tool in your workshop, the more you have the better you are equipped to deal with the [[unknown unknown]]s our [[complex]] world will surely throw at us — but that tends ''not'' to be what big data disciples are after.  
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/69047...73690"