by Causal inferences — what Big Data cannot give us .[embedded content] The central problem with the present ‘Machine Learning’ and ‘Big Data’ hype is that so many — falsely — think that they can get away with analyzing real-world phenomena without any (commitment to) theory. But — data never speaks for itself. Data by themselves are useless. Without a prior statistical set-up, there actually are no data at all to process. Clever data-mining tricks are not enough to answer important scientific questions. Theory matters. If we wanted highly probable claims, scientists would stick to low-level observables and not seek generalizations, much less theories with high explanatory content. In this day of fascination with Big data’s ability to predict what book
Topics:
Lars Pålsson Syll considers the following as important: Statistics & Econometrics
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes What statistics teachers get wrong!
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Statistical uncertainty
Lars Pålsson Syll writes The dangers of using pernicious fictions in statistics
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Interpreting confidence intervals
Causal inferences — what Big Data cannot give us
.
The central problem with the present ‘Machine Learning’ and ‘Big Data’ hype is that so many — falsely — think that they can get away with analyzing real-world phenomena without any (commitment to) theory. But — data never speaks for itself. Data by themselves are useless. Without a prior statistical set-up, there actually are no data at all to process.
Clever data-mining tricks are not enough to answer important scientific questions. Theory matters.
If we wanted highly probable claims, scientists would stick to low-level observables and not seek generalizations, much less theories with high explanatory content. In this day of fascination with Big data’s ability to predict what book I’ll buy next, a healthy Popperian reminder is due: humans also want to understand and to explain. We want bold ‘improbable’ theories. I’m a little puzzled when I hear leading machine learners praise Popper, a realist, while proclaiming themselves fervid instrumentalists. That is, they hold the view that theories, rather than aiming at truth, are just instruments for organizing and predicting observable facts. It follows from the success of machine learning, Vladimir Cherkassy avers, that “realism is not possible.” This is very quick philosophy!
Quick indeed!