[dragonwriter]

> 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

All (empirical) science involves data, but not all of the work of science is the domain-neutral skill of analyzing data. I think "data science" is a bit of a misnomer -- or at least, uses an older and less specific definition of "science" than is now typical -- ("Data in science" would be more accurate under the narrower definition of science, and "Data analytics" probably more direct and clear), but its not *that bad (its no worse than, e.g., "computer science".)