3 ms·
The hype was that you could take a huge pile of data and turn it into hugely valuable insights. The realization is that any random pile of data likely doesn't
by OldHand2018 7y ago
The hype was that you could take a huge pile of data and turn it into hugely valuable insights.
The realization is that any random pile of data likely doesn't have anything in it that is worth paying for:
Here's our analysis!
We already do/knew that.
Some people have really good, valuable data sets. Most people don't.
- foolrush 7y agoIt’s an epistemology / ontology question, as folks familiar with the humanities would spot in little time. Aka it’s not “data” until something empowers the created metric a meaning. The map is not the territory. https://www.amazon.com/Raw-Data-Oxymoron-Infrastructures/dp/0262518287 https://www.amazon.com/Raw-Data-Oxymoron-Infrastructures/dp/...
- bravura 7y agoI know what all those words mean, I've studied critical theory, and I have no idea what your point is.
- itronitron 7y agowhenever I hear the word ontology I reach for my dictionary
- diehunde 7y agoIt's starting to become a buzzword in data science too
- ellius 7y agoI think the point is that "data" is useless until it becomes "knowledge," and that turning data into knowledge is a complicated and philosophical act. Business being business, most of the people running the show were never interested in the deeper questions of how to create knowledge. They just wanted a new arrow in the quiver. Once they realized the cost of actually doing the work, it became much less appealing.
- huac 7y agoThe map and the territory are pretty basic terms, right? There's a Wikipedia article on it, even: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation