New to my blog? You may want to think about subscribing to be notified of new posts. Thanks for visiting!
The answer is quite a bit it seems. The scientific method is based around making a hypothesis and then testing it. This invariably leads to the creation of some sort of model to explain phenomena, which is useful for whatever purpose it was designed for but always turns out to be wrong. (A bit like the mapping phenomena I posted about yesterday.)
Newton got it wrong, psychology got it wrong, genetics got it wrong. Statistician George Box once said, famously, 'All models are wrong, but some are useful.'
When it comes to Google, the sheer amount of data being processed means there is no longer any need for such hypothesis or flawed models. It's another example of how technology doesn't just improve the way we do things, it changes it altogether.
Google doesn't ask why one webpage is more important than another, it just uses complicated algorithms which show that it is. Google does not need any knowledge of what is on a webpage, or indeed any knowledge of advertising, to place relevant ads beside relevant content. The sheer amount of data and the way it is processed make it possible with only applied mathematics. Google can translate French into German, but could just as easily translate Klingon into Farsi if it had enough data to work from.
I am paraphrasing Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, in his article 'The End of Theory'. Chris is also the author of the seminal bookThe Long Tail, a must-read for anyone attempting to do business in the communications age.
For Chris, the data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Correlation is enough. We can throw the numbers into the biggest computing clusters the world has ever seen and let statistical algorithms find patterns where science cannot.
As with all Chris Anderson's articles, this one is a fascinating read for those who are interested in the way technology is changing our world. Read it here.
{ 0 comments… add one now }