Data science is not scientific

Well, not all of it. Some of it is, but the unscientific bits are the most hyped, and the connections are not well understood.

Karl Popper rejects inductive reasoning as the method of drawing inferences. Taleb rails against the pitfalls of it. But it is the basis of machine learning.

It is a mistake to over rely on just one mode of reasoning. Induction has its place, but so does deduction and abduction.

And from a Boydian (John Boyd) PoV, an obsession with cataloging the past to ‘predict’ the future is passive. The future needs to be shaped in order to win.

“Prediction depends on events outside your control. Creation depends on events within your control. Don’t guess about the future. Shape it.” – James Clear, 3-2-1 newsletter

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it” – Alan Kay

Related: Be decision-driven, not data-driven

Notes mentioning this note

There are no notes linking to this note.

Here are all the notes in this garden, along with their links, visualized as a graph. If you don't see any nodes try zooming and panning in the grey area.