Element contents
Big Data
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 January 2021
Summary
Big Data and methods for analyzing large data sets such as machine learning have in recent times deeply transformed scientific practice in many fields. However, an epistemological study of these novel tools is still largely lacking. After a conceptual analysis of the notion of data and a brief introduction into the methodological dichotomy between inductivism and hypothetico-deductivism, several controversial theses regarding big data approaches are discussed. These include, whether correlation replaces causation, whether the end of theory is in sight and whether big data approaches constitute entirely novel scientific methodology. In this Element, I defend an inductivist view of big data research and argue that the type of induction employed by the most successful big data algorithms is variational induction in the tradition of Mill's methods. Based on this insight, the before-mentioned epistemological issues can be systematically addressed.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108588676Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 18 February 2021
References
Adriaans, P. (2019). Information. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/information/.Google Scholar
Ampère, J.-M. (1826/2012). Mathematical Theory of Electro-Dynamic Phenomena Uniquely Derived from Experiments, transl. M. D. Godfrey. Paris: A. Hermann, archive.org/details/AmpereTheorieEn.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. WIRED Magazine, 16/07, www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16–07/pb_theory.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, M., & Falk, C. (2019). Boolean difference-making: A modern regularity theory of causation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz047.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, M., & Graßhoff, G. (2003). Kausalität und kausales Schliessen. Bern: Bern Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Bellman, R. E. (1961). Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bergadano, F. (1993). Machine learning and the foundations of inductive inference. Minds and Machines, 3, 31–51.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2010). Eliminative abduction: Examples from medicine. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 41(4), 345–52.Google Scholar
Bogen, J., & Woodward, J. (1988). Saving the phenomena. The Philosophical Review, 97(3), 303–52.Google Scholar
boyd, , d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–79.Google Scholar
Breiman, L. (2001). Statistical modeling: The two cultures. Statistical Science, 16(3), 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burian, R. (1997). Exploratory experimentation and the role of histochemical techniques in the work of Jean Brachet, 1938–1952. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 19, 27–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Calhoun, C. (2002). Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Callebaut, W. (2012). Scientific perspectivism: A philosopher of science’s response to the challenge of big data biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science, 43(1), 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calude, C. S., & Longo, G. (2017). The deluge of spurious correlations in big data. Foundations of Science, 22(3), 595–612.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1996). Philosophical Foundations. In Boden, M. A., ed., Artificial Intelligence. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Colman, A. M. (2015). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coveney, P. V., Dougherty, E. R., & Highfield, R. R. (2016). Big data needs big theory too. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374, 20160153.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1934). On the method of theoretical physics. Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 163–9.Google Scholar
Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S. (2017). Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 542, 115–18.Google Scholar
Feest, U., & Steinle, F. (2016). Experiment. In Hymphreys, P., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 274–95.Google Scholar
Flach, P. (2012). Machine Learning: The Art and Science of Algorithms That Make Sense of Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Floridi, L. (2008). Data. In Darity, W. A., ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Detroit: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Floridi, L. (2019). Semantic conceptions of information. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/information-semantic/.Google Scholar
Foster, I., Ghani, R., Jarmin, R. S., Kreuter, F., & Lane, J. (2017). Big Data and Social Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Foster, I., & Heus, P. (2017). Databases. In Foster, I, Ghani, R, Jarmin, R. S, Kreuter, F, & Lane, J, eds., Big Data and Social Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 93–124.Google Scholar
Frické, M. (2014). Big data and its epistemology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(4), 651–61.Google Scholar
Ghani, R., & Schierholz, M. (2017). Machine learning. In Foster, I, Ghani, R, Jarmin, R. S, Kreuter, F, & Lane, J, eds., Big Data and Social Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 147–86.Google Scholar
Gillies, D. (1996). Artificial Intelligence and Scientific Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep Learning. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Graßhoff, G., & May, M. (2001). Causal regularities. In Spohn, W., Ledwig, M., & Esfeld, M., eds., Current Issues in Causation. Paderborn: Mentis Verlag, pp. 85–114.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1992). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In Pickering, A., ed., Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 29–64.Google Scholar
Hambling, D. (2019). The Pentagon has a laser that can identify people from a distance – by their heartbeat. MIT Technology Review, www.technologyreview.com/2019/06/27/238884/the-pentagon-has-a-laser-that-can-identify-people-from-a-distanceby-their-heartbeat/.Google Scholar
Harman, G., & Kulkarni, S. (2007). Reliable Reasoning. Induction and Statistical Learning Theory. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2001). The Elements of Statistical Learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Höfer, T., Przyrembel, H., & Verleger, S. (2004). New evidence for the theory of the stork. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 18(1), 88–92.Google Scholar
Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 945–60.Google Scholar
Hosni, H., & Vulpiani, A. (2018a). Forecasting in light of big data. Philosophy & Technology, 31, 557–69.Google Scholar
Hosni, H., & Vulpiani, A. (2018b). Data science and the art of modelling. Lettera Matematica, 6, 121–9.Google Scholar
Jelinek, F. (2009). The dawn of statistical ASR and MT. Computational Linguistics, 35(4), 483–94.Google Scholar
Knüsel, B., Zumwald, M., Baumberger, C., Hirsch Hadorn, G., Fischer, E., Bresch, D., & Knutti, R. (2019). Applying big data beyond small problems in climate research. Nature Climate Change, 9, 196–202.Google Scholar
Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy Online Controlled Experiments: A Practical Guide to A/B Testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, M. (2011). Mechanisms in dynamically complex systems. In Illari, P., Russo, F., & Williamson, J., eds., Causality in the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laney, D. (2001). 3D Data Management: Controlling Data Volume, Velocity, and Variety. Research Report. blogs.gartner.com/doug-laney/files/2012/01/ad949-3D-Data-Management-Controlling-Data-Volume-Velocity-and-Variety.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lazer, D., Kennedy, R., King, G., & Vespignani, A. (2014). The parable of Google Flu: Traps in big data analysis. Science, 343(6167), 1203–5.Google Scholar
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature 521, 436–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonelli, S. (2014). What difference does quantity make? On the epistemology of big data in biology. Big Data & Society 1(1).Google Scholar
Leonelli, S. (2016). Data-Centric Biology: A Philosophical Study, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Leonelli, S. (2019). What distinguishes data from models? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9, 22.Google Scholar
Luca, M., & Bazerman, M. H. (2020). Power of Experiments: Decision Making in a Data-Driven World. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Lyon, A. (2016). Data. In Humphreys, P., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mach, E. (1905/1976). Knowledge and Error: Sketches on the Psychology of Enquiry. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Mach, E. (1923/1986). Principles of the Theory of Heat – Historically and Critically Elucidated, transl. T. J. McCormack. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1967). Mill’s methods of induction. In Edward, P., ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 5. New York: MacMillan, pp. 324–32.Google Scholar
Mazzocchi, F. (2015). Could big data be the end of theory in science? A few remarks on the epistemology of data-driven science. EMBO Reports, 16(10), 1250–5.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. L., & Papert, S. A. (1969). Perceptrons. An Introduction to Computational Geometry. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Napoletani, D., Panza, M., & Struppa, D. C. (2011). Toward a philosophy of data analysis. Foundations of Science, 16(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Northcott, R. (2019). Big data and prediction: Four case studies. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2019.09.002Google Scholar
Norton, J. D. (1995). Eliminative induction as a method of discovery: Einstein’s discovery of General Relativity. In Leplin, J., ed., The Creation of Ideas in Physics: Studies for a Methodology of Theory Construction. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 29–69.Google Scholar
Norton, J. D. (2005). A little survey of induction. In Achinstein, P., ed., Scientific Evidence: Philosophical Theories and Applications. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 9–34.Google Scholar
Norvig, P. (2009). Natural language corpus data. In Segaran, T & Hammerbacher, J, eds., Beautiful Data. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, pp. 219–42.Google Scholar
Panza, M., Napoletani, D., & Struppa, D. (2011). Agnostic science. Towards a philosophy of data analysis. Foundations of Science, 16(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Pietsch, W. (2014). The structure of causal evidence based on eliminative induction. Topoi, 33(2), 421–35.Google Scholar
Pietsch, W. (2015). Aspects of theory-ladenness in data-intensive science. Philosophy of Science 82(5): 905–16.Google Scholar
Pietsch, W. (2016a). The causal nature of modeling with big data. Philosophy & Technology, 29(2), 137–71.Google Scholar
Pietsch, W. (2016b). A difference-making account of causation, philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11913/.Google Scholar
Pietsch, W. (2017). Causation, probability, and all that: Data science as a novel inductive paradigm. In Dehmer, M & Emmert-Streib, F, eds., Frontiers in Data Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 329–53.Google Scholar
Pietsch, W. (2019). A causal approach to analogy. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 50(4), 489–520.Google Scholar
Plantin, J. C., & Russo, F. (2016). D’abord les données, ensuite la méthode? Big data et déterminisme en sciences sociales. Socio, 6, 97–115.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1935/2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge Classics.Google Scholar
Ratti, E. (2015). Big data biology: Between eliminative inferences and exploratory experiments. Philosophy of Science, 82(2), 198–218.Google Scholar
Rheinberger, H.-J. (2011). Infra-experimentality: From traces to data, from data to patterning facts. History of Science, 49(3), 337–48.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, F. (1962). Principles of Neurodynamics: Perceptrons and the Theory of Brain Mechanisms, Washington, DC: Spartan Books.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1913). On the notion of cause. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 13, 1–26.Google Scholar
Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2009). Artificial Intelligence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Russo, F. (2007). The rationale of variation in methodological and evidential pluralism. Philosophica, 77, 97–124.Google Scholar
Russo, F. (2009). Causality and Causal Modelling in the Social Sciences. Measuring Variations, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Scholl, R. (2013). Causal inference, mechanisms, and the Semmelweis case. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 44(1), 66–76.Google Scholar
Schurz, G. (2014). Philosophy of Science: A Unified Approach, New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Solomonoff, R. (1964a). A formal theory of inductive inference, part I. Information and Control, 7(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Solomonoff, R. (1964b). A formal theory of inductive inference, part II. Information and Control, 7(2), 224–54.Google Scholar
Solomonoff, R. (1999). Two kinds of probabilistic induction. The Computer Journal, 42(4), 256–9.Google Scholar
Solomonoff, R. (2008). Three kinds of probabilistic induction: Universal distributions and convergence theorems. The Computer Journal, 51(5), 566–70.Google Scholar
Steinle, F. (1997). Entering new fields: Exploratory uses of experimentation. Philosophy of Science 64, S65–S74.Google Scholar
Sterkenburg, T. F. (2016). Solomonoff prediction and Occam’s Razor. Philosophy of Science 83(4), 459–79.Google Scholar
Sullivan, E. (2019). Understanding from machine learning models. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, axz035, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz035.Google Scholar
Vapnik, V. N. (1999). An overview of statistical learning theory. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 10(5), 988–99.Google Scholar
Vapnik, V. N. (2000). The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory, 2nd ed., New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Vickers, J. (2018). The problem of induction. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/induction-problem/.Google Scholar
Vo, H., & Silva, C. (2017). Programming with Big Data. In Foster, I, Ghani, R, Jarmin, R. S, Kreuter, F, & Lane, J, eds., Big Data and Social Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 125–44.Google Scholar
Wan, C., Wang, L., & Phoha, V. (2019). A survey on gait recognition. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(5), 89.Google Scholar
Wheeler, G. (2016). Machine epistemology and big data. In McIntyre, L. & Rosenberg, A., eds., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Social Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Williamson, J. (2004). A dynamic interaction between machine learning and the philosophy of science. Minds and Machines, 14(4), 539–49.Google Scholar
Williamson, J. (2009). The philosophy of science and its relation to machine learning. In Gaber, M. M., ed., Scientific Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery: Principles and Foundations. Berlin: Springer, pp. 77–89.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2011). Data and phenomena: A restatement and a defense. Synthese, 182, 165–79.Google Scholar
von Wright, G. H. (1951). A Treatise on Induction and Probability. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yu, K.-H., Zhang, C., Berry, G. J., Altman, R. B., Ré, C., Rubin, D. L., & Snyder, M. 2016. Predicting non-small cell lung cancer prognosis by fully automated microscopic pathology image features. Nature Communications, 7, 12474.Google Scholar
Zeiler, M. D., & Fergus, R. (2014). Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In Fleet, D, Pajdla, T, Schiele, B, & Tuytelaars, T, eds., Computer Vision – ECCV 2014. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 818–33.Google Scholar
- 21
- Cited by