Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why the Cloud Cannot Obscure the Scientific Method

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the because-of-science-dude dept.

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.

3 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. datasource != process by Bandman · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Because a datasource isn't a process?

    --
    Check out my sysadmin blog!
  2. It's a good rebuttal by Hoplite3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd say that the models are the science. They're how you explain your data. They provide evidence that the experiments make sense, and they guide you by making predictions you can test.

    Moreover, SIMPLIFIED MODELS are good science. Understanding which details can be omitted without impacting the predictive ability of your model shows you know which effects are important and which aren't.

    --
    Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
  3. Duh! by es330td · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I read the original article my thought was that someone was just trying to write something to get noticed. The Scientific method, IMHO, is all about a person or group of persons using a logical process to determine the vailidity of an idea. Observing massive amounts of data can reveal relationships that may not have been noticed in other ways, but at the end of the day the process of "I think X, I wonder if it is true", the heart of the scientific method, can no sooner become obsolete than we can stop being human. The questions of What, Why and How are so fundamental to humans as humans that nothing short of total omniscience will ever replace the logical process represented by the scientific method.