Google Begat the End of the Scientific Method?

TheSauce writes "In a fairly concise one-pager from Chris Anderson, at Wired, the editor posits that all of our current (or now previous) models for collecting data are dead. The content is compelling. It notes that we've entered the Age of the Petabyte — where one can collect immense amounts of data that are paradigm agnostic. It goes on to add a comment from the head of Google's R&D, that we need an update to George Box's maxim: 'All models are wrong, and increasingly you can succeed without them.' Have we reached a time where all of our tool-sets are now made moot by vast clouds of information and strictly applied maths?"

Comments

Google =/= scientific method

[Rubikon]

That an incredible amount of data exists on any given topic does nothing to describe relationships, causality, precision, accuracy, distribution, correlation, or anything else. Data is information, and information must be processed in order to make it meaningful. Additionally, everything that's written, printed, published, etc, is not necessarily true, accurate, precise, etc.

If anything, the Google phenomenon demands more rigorous examination by accepted methods.

The preceding message has been brought to you by Captain Obvious and the letters O,R,L,Y.

Re:Ahem

[Anonymous Coward]

Each claim the others data is unsound by the paradigm's umbrella it falls under.

No, each claim the other's theory is wrong.

Nobody (sane) refutes the existence of ring species, or refutes microevolution, or other observable forms of data. The only thing in dispute in the controversy is "species are species because they were made that way" versus "species are species because after some really big N evolutionary steps they become that way".

No. Science Scales.

[mbone]

Have we reached a time where all of our tool-sets are now made moot by vast clouds of information and strictly applied maths?

No. And also no to the basic premise of the article.

Meteorologists have been doing this for decades (principal component analysis has been a crucial tool there since the 1960's, and correlation analysis has been used in some form since the 1920's if not earlier) and so have the astronomers. Oh, and the particle physicists have been sifting data in their own way on a big scale ever since World War II.

As one of many examples, if you ever have heard of an "El Nino event," that was discovered through correlation analysis and is best understood through principal component analysis. BTW, the original work predates electronic computers and was all done by hand. The vast quantities of meteorological data require statistical analysis to make any progress at all, but that certainly does not mean that you cannot use the scientific method.

So, no, this does not invalidate the scientific method. In the Internet jargon, science scales.

Consequence of the Post-Modern Age

[phobos13013]

Anyone who has read any work by Lyotard, Baudrillard, or Derrida has seen this interpretation of reality coming for years. This is basically the consequence of the Post-modernist/Post-structuralist mentality.

In a sense, what the article is proposing is the "simulation" of reality in a computer system based on the available "data". This simulation as i will suppose in a moment is merely a flawed model since the data being related must in some sense be based on an algorithm which inherently MIMICS reality and is not a substitution for it (no matter how, "accurate" agreement). But nonetheless, the result of this as Baudrillard observed is not a simulation but a simulacrum of reality and eventually will take the place of reality. The implication is that reality is not created or manufactured by the interaction of people in a "real" sense but is actually lead by the operation of the simulacrum!

Nonetheless, the fact is there is no possible way to store ALL the data of the entire world (since some data is not recordable by a binary machine, and no a "quantum" computer is the solution to say it can be); however, the problem is this fact does not mean we cannot be mislead by the simulacrum and be lead into a future where human interaction is as I would call inhuman, but as some who have (in some cases unknowingly) fallen for the post-modern myth would call it merely an evolutionary result of human-interaction.

In the future the storage of data, the usage of data, and the power of data will have a huge impact on our humanity as the past twenty years should already be evidence of. I am not an apocalyptic fear-monger, but the proof is in the pudding. For further reading, I recommend a highly prescient book written in 1990 by a Mr. Mark Poster called the Mode of Information which talks about some of these implications which are in the process of becoming as we speak

Quite...

[denzacar]

I'm sure there are some kernels of insight buried in there someplace, but I'm just not clear what they are My thoughts exactly.
And since most slashdot readers don't RTFA most comments here have proven useless in trying to figure what those kernels you mention are.
But this guy, who has read TFA (and commented on it on the Wired's site) seems to have found them.

Posted by: technophile
20 hours ago1 Point

I think what you have hit on here is the difference between analytical and empirical solutions. Analytical relationships are usually first determined from empirical ones. Once you have the empirical relationships you can determine the missing factors or constants.

(See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_method )

They are both necessary and a part of the scientific process. You collect data, generate empirical equations, then try and derive or otherwise model the empirical relationship with an analytical one. Empirical relationships are limited because they are somewhat system dependent. For instance an empirical relationship for the ideal gas law could be generated using methane. This might be accurate for methane, but limited in its use for a gas that deviates from the ideal behavior (i.e. hydrogen fluoride gas). You could generate an empirical relationship for every single molecule in the universe but that would be impractical, which is why analytical relationships can often be more useful. Hopefully the "Petabyte Age" will allow the scientific method to flourish, not replace it.

edit: Rethinking my reply, what the article seems to say is that the Petabyte Age will make determining empirical relationships for everything practical. The scientist who generates loads of empirical relationships and never questions the underlying theory is not a scientist at all, just an observer of scientific processes. I suppose it depends on your goal as to whether this will suit you or not.

Re:Ahem

[JeanPaulBob]

In the minds of some Creationists, science is itself defective because it only deals with natural phenomena.

Psst. It doesn't. It deals with phenomena about which (or based on which) we can make measurable, testable predictions.

If your methodology for evaluating a theory requires classifying it by abstract metaphysical concepts like "natural" and "supernatural", then you're a step away from the scientific method of "experiment".

Re:Analysis, someone got excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting to undo accidental positive moderation. I didn't realize "freenix" is one of twitter's accounts.

Thanks for making me waste a mod point.

Re:Don't rule science out it.

[ColdWetDog]

That's a disturbingly accurate analogy for what TFA is trying to say (and thanks for playing everyone). The problem is that isn't "science" - it's at best a hack engineer job. It might work to get the car running, but you aren't going to be making much progress concerning "cars" in general.

Man, I'm feeling old today. Whatever happened to "first principles"? And my slide rule.

Re:Just to clarify

[TuringTest]

I suggest you to include the search terms -buy and -price. That makes wonders in getting Google to show you the actually relevant pieces of information.