3 ms·
It's not anti-intellectual to say that arguments based in moral philosophy and ground-level polling hold their weight against a simulated outcome. The whole pr
by megameter 6y ago
It's not anti-intellectual to say that arguments based in moral philosophy and ground-level polling hold their weight against a simulated outcome.
The whole premise of predicting through data is one based in rendering legible that which is not, creating order from chaos. This means that it does equally at well at reinforcing biases as it does at revealing truths, because if you really want a certain kind of answer, you will find a way to make the data reflect it. Just look at automated stock trading, for one. It's easy to make it work in back-testing, and then it goes live and the market does something totally different. Grip sand too tightly and it will simply slip through your fingers.
- Nasrudith 6y agoWhat moral philosophy? I saw only rationalization in the article that failed to articulate the difference. "Burdick warned, their very lack of interest in contemplating the possible consequences of their work stood as a terrible danger. Indeed, they might “radically reconstruct the American political system, build a new politics, and even modify revered and venerable American institutions — facts of which they are blissfully innocent”. That description could apply equally to any activist advocating for change. It is vacuous in that sense as it applies to civil rights activists, monarchists, utopian reformers seeking technocracy, communism, or some other bizzare system. Plus calling people war criminals just for doing math? What is anti-intellectualism if not damning people for trying to understand complex systems because they might use it for evil?