>> why can't data science simply be about applying the scientific method in the realm of data analysis?
>That's what a statistician do.
Mmmh.
Run that experiment for me next time you meet a statistician:
- ask him if he can apply Chi-squared to a decision problem
- ask him if he can *explain* how and why Chi-squared works.
In my experience, all statisticians can do the first, almost none can do the second.
Learning how to use a screwdriver to screw screws without understanding notions of torque and moment doesn't mean you're applying the scientific method.
I would argue that they should be able to understand it to the level that they can at least defend Chi-squared as a tool for the problem at hand. Then, they should be able to evaluate whether or not it works correctly.
If a medical researcher is testing a new radio-therapy treatment, but can't mathematically model every fission problem you can throw at them, they're still applying the scientific method.
> In my experience, all statisticians can do the first, almost none can do the second.
I think a phd statistician can do this.
Master statistic does not touch upon field and measure theory in statistical inference so many questions get unanswered. But I suspect you may be correct.
I view chisq as a statistical distance for most of my encounter and learning.
Mmmh.
Run that experiment for me next time you meet a statistician:
In my experience, all statisticians can do the first, almost none can do the second.Learning how to use a screwdriver to screw screws without understanding notions of torque and moment doesn't mean you're applying the scientific method.