82,885
edits
Big data: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
There is ''good'' noise: random, valid information that is just not the information you are looking for, but is broadcast on the same frequency (background radiation, cosmic chatter, cocktail party [[hubbub]] — hundreds of other perfectly meaningful exchanges; just not the one you are interested in) and there is ''bad'' noise: errors, mistakes, [[hot takes on Twitter]] and so on. | There is ''good'' noise: random, valid information that is just not the information you are looking for, but is broadcast on the same frequency (background radiation, cosmic chatter, cocktail party [[hubbub]] — hundreds of other perfectly meaningful exchanges; just not the one you are interested in) and there is ''bad'' noise: errors, mistakes, [[hot takes on Twitter]] and so on. | ||
And we ''self-select'' for bad noise. Little evidence remains in the fossil record of the failed experiments unsuccessful iterations | And we ''self-select'' for bad noise, eschewing ''good'' noise as being worthless: scientific journals do not publish accounts of research programmes that turn out badly. Little evidence remains in the [[fossil record]] of the failed experiments, unsuccessful iterations and occasions where, under laboratory conditions, the data did not do what the experimenter hoped they would, for ''no-one publicises non-results''. Even for the ''good'' experiments, the published research that it makes it past peer review is filtered and cleansed of all those false starts and misconceptions that led to the Eureka moment. Mean time, the hot takes on Twitter, conspiracy theories and cat videos continue to mushroom. | ||
===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 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. | ||