
Exalting Data, Missing Meaning (2017) - giansegato
https://blog.andymatuschak.org/post/159340765257/exalting-data-missing-meaning
======
yamrzou
Excellent article.

 _Worse, it [data obsession] deprives us of truly meaningful insights that are
available via philosophy, intuition, and stories, but not yet fully explicable
through quantitative systems._

This is why the lack of scientific evidence is never sufficient to discredit a
fact. If there are no scientific studies about something, it's OK to rely on
intuition and stories, and act upon them, until sufficient data is gathered
for scientific inquiry.

~~~
claudiawerner
I agree with your overall point, and even the broad case in which we should
not take data as superceding rational non-quantitative examination of the
world. However,

>If there are no scientific studies about something, it's OK to rely on
intuition and stories

This really depends on what the stakes are, and it doesn't tell us much about
whose intuition or whose stories to believe. For example, I'd be pretty
annoyed if I were thrown in jail for writing a pornographic story if the law
were to decide that there isn't sufficient data (or the data isn't convincing
to them) and so they go with the intuition that it'll cause some horrific
outcome if someone were to read it. Similarly, there are some pretty strong
philosophical arguments against the role of intuition overall, especially in
our lawmaking and moral capacities.

We can stretch it further; most people have the intuition that there are
meaningful moral facts. Yet, moral nihilism is a position often taken
seriously in philosophy, even if only in certain contexts. Empirical data on
the matter is merely informative at best. Should we make laws on the
presumption that moral nihilism is true, or that it is false?

~~~
yamrzou
It didn't occur to me that someone would apply this to moral facts, but why
not.

In your example, the role of intuition becomes problematic if laws were based
on it. Except that such intuition won't turn into a law unless a majority of
people adopt it, which _generally_ won't happen if it's not plausible enough.
Although it could happen, and I agree with you that it could become
dangereous, if reason and experts' opinions stop being highly valued by
society.

> Should we make laws on the presumption that moral nihilism is true, or that
> it is false?

How should I interpret the "Should" in this question, as "In order to be
consistent, should we make laws...", or as a moral obligation :) ?

The underlying assumptions in your question are 1) that there should be a
single principle based on which we make laws, which is not necessarily true,
that's why we end up with all kinds of inconsistencies, 2) that lawmakers care
about philosophy when making laws, which doesn't hold for me.

I'm not well versed in philosphy, so I'm arguing here from my basic
understanding of things. Laws are practical. What would be the practical
consequences if laws were made on the presumption that moral nihilism is true?

------
roenxi
The problem business faces when looking for a competitive advantage is that
anything well understood ... is no advantage. Take double entry bookkeeping.
Clear evidenced based link between good accounting and good results, so every
business does it. There is basically no advantage gained over the competition
from good accounting.

So companies are fighting over the scraps of advantage at the margins where
there might, or might not, be an advantage in doing things a certain way.
Trouble is very few people can actually evaluate evidence (everyone says they
can, evidence is not many people are right). The situation quickly becomes
absurd.

------
asplake
Distilled: Meaning before metric, measure before method (2MBM)
[https://www.agendashift.com/2mbm](https://www.agendashift.com/2mbm)

