http://blurringborders.com/2009/10/12/we-can-never-quantify-everything-we-can-only-fool-ourselves-into-thinking-we-can/ Tech Policy, Development and World Affairs Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 http://blurringborders.com/2009/10/12/we-can-never-quantify-everything-we-can-only-fool-ourselves-into-thinking-we-can/comment-page-1/#comment-361 Blurring Borders » Blog Archive » The Consequences of Big Data and Computational Power Fri, 07 May 2010 10:39:44 +0000 http://blurringborders.com/?p=643#comment-361 [...] 2: I have previously written a bit more extensively about my reservations about quantification here. Tags: computing, data, eliot, ethics Technology Policy blog comments powered by [...] [...] 2: I have previously written a bit more extensively about my reservations about quantification here. Tags: computing, data, eliot, ethics Technology Policy blog comments powered by [...]

]]> http://blurringborders.com/2009/10/12/we-can-never-quantify-everything-we-can-only-fool-ourselves-into-thinking-we-can/comment-page-1/#comment-292 Blurring Borders » Blog Archive » Quantifying Musical Tastes Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:19:16 +0000 http://blurringborders.com/?p=643#comment-292 [...] Have they succeeded in quantifying musical tastes through their labor-intensive algorithmic process? Is there a lesson for all the other realms in which people are attempting to quantify human experience? [...] [...] Have they succeeded in quantifying musical tastes through their labor-intensive algorithmic process? Is there a lesson for all the other realms in which people are attempting to quantify human experience? [...]

]]> http://blurringborders.com/2009/10/12/we-can-never-quantify-everything-we-can-only-fool-ourselves-into-thinking-we-can/comment-page-1/#comment-317 andrewlocke Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:38:28 +0000 http://blurringborders.com/?p=643#comment-317 Provocative stance, sir. My one critique would be that you fail to adequately represent the merits of quantification. To quote our president/savor "We need a scalpel not a hatchet." The question, as I see it, is to discover the best way to allocate these newly developed quantitative tools. I agree with Krugman; but we have been mistaking beauty for truth for a long time, especially in economics. Because academic fields are so varied, the issue of quantification needs to be handled on an individual basis. Obviously, economics is one that needs a complete makeover. Others, however, are perhaps on the right track. What we need to do is weed through and find where the quantitative trap exists and where it does not. Provocative stance, sir. My one critique would be that you fail to adequately represent the merits of quantification. To quote our president/savor “We need a scalpel not a hatchet.” The question, as I see it, is to discover the best way to allocate these newly developed quantitative tools. I agree with Krugman; but we have been mistaking beauty for truth for a long time, especially in economics. Because academic fields are so varied, the issue of quantification needs to be handled on an individual basis. Obviously, economics is one that needs a complete makeover. Others, however, are perhaps on the right track. What we need to do is weed through and find where the quantitative trap exists and where it does not.

]]> http://blurringborders.com/2009/10/12/we-can-never-quantify-everything-we-can-only-fool-ourselves-into-thinking-we-can/comment-page-1/#comment-286 andrewlocke Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:38:28 +0000 http://blurringborders.com/?p=643#comment-286 Provocative stance, sir. My one critique would be that you fail to adequately represent the merits of quantification. To quote our president/savor "We need a scalpel not a hatchet." The question, as I see it, is to discover the best way to allocate these newly developed quantitative tools. I agree with Krugman; but we have been mistaking beauty for truth for a long time, especially in economics. Because academic fields are so varied, the issue of quantification needs to be handled on an individual basis. Obviously, economics is one that needs a complete makeover. Others, however, are perhaps on the right track. What we need to do is weed through and find where the quantitative trap exists and where it does not. Provocative stance, sir. My one critique would be that you fail to adequately represent the merits of quantification. To quote our president/savor “We need a scalpel not a hatchet.” The question, as I see it, is to discover the best way to allocate these newly developed quantitative tools. I agree with Krugman; but we have been mistaking beauty for truth for a long time, especially in economics. Because academic fields are so varied, the issue of quantification needs to be handled on an individual basis. Obviously, economics is one that needs a complete makeover. Others, however, are perhaps on the right track. What we need to do is weed through and find where the quantitative trap exists and where it does not.

]]>