3 ms·
I disagree with this common, yet faulty, explanation. (IMHO coming from people who have never worked in science and for whom everything R&D looks like "science!
by stared 9y ago
I disagree with this common, yet faulty, explanation. (IMHO coming from people who have never worked in science and for whom everything R&D looks like "science!".)
Building engines or cars (involving a lot of tests!) is considered engineering. And as any serious engineering it's not purely random trails&errors. A/B tests are not a sufficient criterion to make something science. And data science (in business) is focused on solving practical problems (which may or may not be research) rather than open-ended research (which may or may not be practical).
Source: I worked in academia. I now work in data science. You?
- denzil_correa 9y agoI have a Ph.D in Computer Science and I have worked across research labs in the industry too so I very much understand where you come from. That said, I don't see the disagreement between us and what part of my explanation you found faulty.
- stared 9y agoSorry for being combative. It comes from two things: - giving talks at universities (then I admit that "data science" is more engineering, compared to academic science) - people who had only experience with software development and then any research-like stuff (or simple mathematics) suddenly becomes "science!"