Slashdot Mirror


Why the Cloud Cannot Obscure the Scientific Method

aproposofwhat noted Ars Technica's rebuttal to yesterday's story about "The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete." The response is titled "Why the cloud cannot obscure the Scientific Method," and is a good follow up to the discussion.

2 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Correlation is not causation by tist · · Score: 4, Informative

    A large source of data that has a correlation does not somehow imply causation. Even if it works under some conditions (or even all conditions). The science happens when the causation is determined and then applied.

  2. Nice rebuttal, bad example. by Angostura · · Score: 4, Informative

    In general I'm right behind the rebuttal. However John Timmer chooses a very bad real-life example as his rebuttal champion.

    He asks: ...would Anderson be willing to help test a drug that was based on a poorly understood correlation pulled out of a datamine? These days, we like our drugs to have known targets and mechanisms of action and, to get there, we need standard science.

    These days we may like our drugs to have these attributes, but very often they don't. There are still quite a few medicines around that clearly work and are prescribed on that basis, but for which there is only the haziest evidence as to how exactly they work.

    The good thing about the scientific method, however is it gives us a framework to investigate these drug's actions - even if the explanation is still currently beyond us.