There's no doubt that any form of inference done by humans is subject to premature registration or even apophenia. But the inverted claim, that _all_ registration is premature (or imaginary) is way too strong, and perhaps a case of tu quoque.
On 09/09/2016 11:42 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Fine, “statistical inference” then. > > *From:*Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Nick Thompson > *Sent:* Friday, September 09, 2016 12:38 PM > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] speaking of analytics > > And data “mining” is a metaphor. > > Now people claim to use metaphors “metaphorically”, by which they mean that > they mean nothing by them. But it is my “teery”* (and it is all mine) that > nobody uses a metaphor but that hizr thinking is influenced by it. The > influence can be inexplicit, in which case the user is blind to its effects > on himmr, or explicit, in which case the user’s imagination is enhanced by > its use and less likely to be misled by its misuse. I would like to explore > this “teery” using “Data Mining” as an example. How does thinking of data as > encased in a non-dynamic subterranean matrix shape our (your) thinking for > good or ill? -- ␦glen? ============================================================ 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
