if there were any truths to the rumor that I was going to school...again.
I replied that I was. He wanted to know some of the details. He has known me for a long time. Perhaps he wanted to confirm some (potentially nefarious) future humor seeding bed for his own edification and/or exploitation. (Yes, that kind of friend!)
So, instead of simply feeding his smirk, I decided to post an article for submission over at Slashdot about what my educationally-motivated self is "up to these days". I told him via the article.
If you want, you can check it out as well. Comments are turned on, but you have to follow their (Slashdot's) commenting rules.
NB: Please do not comment as "Anonymous Coward". Nobody will see those comments on my blog. :)
"Learning All Over Again...For The First Time!"
I've encountered a few challenges in the short time since beginning this study course. Several of them have to do with "compartmentalizing" comments for, among and/or between the two courses in which I am currently enrolled.
1. I posted an introductory post in one course forum, but not in the other. I do not wish to simply duplicate any post, ever. The writer inside me doesn't want to, and the internal editor inside me would never, ever permit such creative heresy. This is one example that of several simple challenges multiple discussion fora can present.
2. TA's in one course may not (in fact, seldom are) TA's in other, or multiple courses. This seems to be somehow related to the fact of numbers. When there are 10,000 or more students in a particular course, common sense would indicate the high probability of having more TA's managing/moderating that course's Discussions. Similarly, a smaller number of students in a course might at least potentiate having fewer TAs in that course. Would the same number (or specific population) of TAs be required for a course with 300 students as one whose population exceeds 10,000 students?
"Correlation does not..."
I believed this to be the motto of the Bloomberg School. (It isn't.) Had this been the case, I would have been proud to be able to tell anyone that I knew where that particular terminology came from!
1. "Protecting public health, saving lives...millions at a time!" is actually the written mantra of the School. Good thing, this. It is a profound mantra to live out.
2. That "other" mantra has been around a very long time, indeed and even preceeds the experience of those of us who actually knew, and used DARPANet. In fact, the debates (celebrated and otherwise) have been fuming for centuries! Hundreds of years prior to the revelation of the Pearson coefficients, philosophers had been working at cracking this nut over drinks.-! (Hemlock?)
As surprising as it may be, the statement and the debate encircling it, that "Correlation does not imply causation!" is rampant. Used often to dismiss not only arguments, but dialogue, this particular set of words has seen a dynamic resurgence in the past two decades. First scribed in a memorable work in 1870, the words were not only a "new" consideration, but rather a summing up of a centuries-old sticking point in literary argument. Understanding why one of the premiere fathers of the science of statistical methods wrote them in the first place adds some credence to the argument, but is by no means the end of it. Trust me on this one.
"Now conditions are reversed. We're the bullies over nature and less afraid of poison berries. When we make a claim about causation, it's not so we can hide out from the world but so we can intervene in it. A false positive means approving drugs that have no effect, or imposing regulations that make no difference, or wasting money in schemes to limit unemployment. As science grows more powerful and government more technocratic, the stakes of correlation—of counterfeit relationships and bogus findings—grow ever larger. The false positive is now more onerous than it's ever been. And all we have to fight it is a catchphrase." (Slate Magazine, By Daniel Engber, 10/12/12)
Karl Pearson (whose photo graces this post, taken in 1912) had a science-shifting effect on the world. He also gave us one of the most intense debates of the 19th, 20th and (now, it would seem) 21st centuries. Hard and Social Sciences use, or misuse this consideration as regularly as you might pull a Tissue from a box. It has it's proper place in our study, and should be remembered as a fundamental principle--where properly applied.
I'm not going to tie my entire understanding of the Data Science field to this, or any other approbation. I'm not going to use it to stifle, or stop legitimate discourse, either. Nor should anyone else, in my view--especially in such a high-tiered learning environment.
I do understand that a few decades of having to fend off countless interactions where having remembered this caution would have saved time, dollars and potentially many lives can have an effect on you. I can name a few of those, myself. So can you, if you are being honest.
I'm not here to argue, necessarily. I am here to learn, to soak up, absorb, and master elements of an amazing field of study and a terrific industry. I'll concentrate on that, for now. Let those with more "skin in the game" have a field day.
I'll concentrate on getting Discussion Forum posts right. And learning new tools in my Data Scientist's Toolbox. And R Programming. And about discourse with an entirely new subset of the planetary population.
Let's DO This!
Bud
PS: I am on Twitter @DS_Student, and you can email me at DS_Student@outlook.com
No comments:
Post a Comment