Scientific Context for Big Data

Commentary on Limitations and Veracity in Science

My comments below are in response to an insightful blog post by Harish Kotadia, Ph.D. that
added useful commentary on recent articles in Science and the New York Times about limitations
and traps in Big Data analytics in isolation. It is noteworthy when cutting-edge scientific issues
are addressed concurrently in respected news outlets and scientific journals. This presents special
problems in communicating scientific values and processes as well as scientific results.
Dr. Kotadias comments focus on the concept of veracity, an exceedingly important concept in
science that is understandable to people who are not trained in science, yet it is a topic that is
rarely communicated well in the popular press. Thanks to Dr. Kotadia for his accessible
contribution. My intent here is to join the conversation and continue it on Science in the Wild.

Concerns about the trustworthiness of Big Data depend on how one defines or interprets
limitation. If the necessary veracity comes from outside of Big Data, then that is a limitation
only in what those quantitative methodologies can achieve by themselves.
However, the need for external sources for veracity doesnt limit the range of problems to which
the quantitative methodologies can be applied. It simply indicates that quantitative methodologies
must be integrated with some capability of a different kind to maximize its potential. This is the
scientific method of iterative hypothesis formulation and testing within a more enduring
theoretical framework. Nothing new here in that respect.
What is new in big data, I believe, is the need for different kinds of theories and new kinds of
communities within which those theories are examined dialectically and developed over time.
This is exciting because these theories almost certainly will be trans-disciplinary, perhaps
spawning entirely new scientific disciplines.
Perhaps even more interesting and challenging, the dialectic within a broader community will
have to include non-scientists who are deeply grounded in the subject matter domain from which
data are collected and with respect to which inferences are made. The non-scientists in this
collaboration, such as thought leaders in business, may actually contribute more to theory
development.
To some extent, this has always been the case in the use of quantitative methods in business.
From the perspective of the sociology of science (perhaps even the philosophy of science), this
collaboration between thought leaders in science and business has been relatively neglected.
The rapprochement between quantitative and qualitative methodologies over the last decade is
auspicious for a deeper understanding of the collaboration between science and business as well
as a more strategic approach to it.
Gary E. Riccio, Ph.D. (March 2014)