Marcus, That's an interesting distinction. Is it the case that by "theory" Nick was referring to something verbal and explicitly metaphorical, or would the results of data mining, which one sought to validate on a different sample, count as a "theory".
So, for example, if my data mining of Marine data found that tying shoes left-to-right predicted success at Officer Candidate School, and I then went to test for that "prediction" in a later sample of incoming officer candidates, to what extent is my prediction based on "a theory". Of course, "data mining will be a useful way to uncover patterns" is itself a theory, applicable in some domains but not others (i.e., not all domains of inquiry will contain the sought after patterns in a long-term stable form). Eric ----------- Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. Supervisory Survey Statistician U.S. Marine Corps <[email protected]> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: > *“*I know that theories are really useful for making predictions, but can > one actually make a prediction without one?” > > > > Yes, that’s what data mining is: Take a large corpus of data, find some > statistically rare relationships, and then test for their predictive value > on another large corpus of data. In this way one can predict things > without really having any kind of theory or even domain knowledge. > > > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
