|
|
|
|
|
|
by ende
3592 days ago
|
|
|
>I still can't get over the term "data science", though. Not only is it ridiculously meaningless - what sort of science doesn't involve data, and how often would data be useful to something that isn't scientific at some level - its meaninglessness derives from the hyped buzzword trendiness that drove its upswing. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the word 'computer science'? |
|
|
I have always been puzzled by the term "computer science" a bit also, because so much of it isn't really science per se (more math or theory along with engineering). When I've thought about it, I usually come to some peace with it because there is a scientific aspect to the field via the hardware side of things, which is really the foundation, at least historically, and there is a historical emphasis on demonstrating results empirically. It's sort of a crude awkward label but I accept it. But then again I went to a school where/when comp sci and EE were the same department.
"Data science" has bothered me more, though, because it's so vague, "data" and "science" are so inextricably defined relative to one another, and because it's arguably misleading - it's not really the science of data, whatever that means, and to the extent it's science, it's just science, but it's not, it's really just statistics.
More appropriate terms to me would be "computational statistics" or "statistical computing", "informatics", or "quantitative computation" or something. Anything but "data science." It's like some stereotypically ignorant but buzzword-compliant management committee, being unfamiliar with data or science, somewhere commanded HR to "find us some of those... you know... data science people!"
... and now venerable universities have whole departments with that title.