

Data science can't be point and click - forrest_t
http://simplystatistics.org/2014/10/09/data-science-cant-be-point-and-click/

======
techHenson
This article wasn't at all what I thought it was about.

To me, it's not automation that's the issue, it's how easy it is to get
_wrong_ data out of this type of software. I think at a minimum you have to
know the data well enough to ensure the numbers pass a "sniff test"; and
hopefully, the user has a good knowledge of the schema they're pulling data
from to know the pitfalls.

You don't have to be an expert, but knowing a little SQL to validate things
can really help.

------
dude_abides
10 things statistics taught us about big data (talk by the same author, linked
from the post): [http://www.slideshare.net/jtleek/10-things-statistics-
taught...](http://www.slideshare.net/jtleek/10-things-statistics-taught-us-
about-big-data)

Yeah the heading is buzzfeed-like, but the content is great.

------
ASneakyFox
Yeah it's much better to have "experts" create our misleading stats.

~~~
mattxxx
so true

------
rpedela
The author seems to be mostly talking about misinterpreting results which is
definitely a problem. I don't specifically see how "point and click" tools
makes this problem worse (or better).

~~~
mattxxx
yup. bad analysis is bad analysis.

------
mattxxx
There's some finesse to using machine learning, but it's largely a blunt tool.
There's no doubt that the research is going into automating predictive
analysis.

~~~
aet
This is quite the generalization

