| "When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning. When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine." — Picasso. ^Culture is good at romanticizing the "dreamer" as divorced from (& higher than) the "doer"/implementer. Picasso might protest. This post is helpful in inviting us examine this instinct/tradition. But that good contrariness doesn't excuse us from being more thoughtful about the chain of deduction underlying the titular claim. First, many big ideas—Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism; that software should be Free as in both Beer and Software; that unruly Democracy could possibly be sometimes a (messily, weirdly) good way of organizing people—might naturally require more doers/thinkers to implement than just the mind (few minds?) who happened to crystallize it. Non-unitary stoichiometries for progress are the rule, not the exception. Nudging a culture is already a many-body problem, & because details matter, and details scale exponentially with levels of abstraction, a project's success can improve with the number of engineering minds adding leverage to advance it. If we take the above earnestly—that making ideas useful usually requires more people than who happened to express an idea—then noticing that more job postings exist for implementory/engineering roles than for "science" roles actually says nearly nothing about whether we as a technological culture are out of balance with science vs engineering, up to how poorly we know about the typical ratio of implementers versus dramers. It could be that there are plenty of good "scientific" ideas in circulation; maybe what separates us from progress is earnest implementation, reflected by empirical over-demand for engineers (as this post seems to mainly argue). The aggressive scaling laws for improving AI (along existing paradigms but broader compute) are tempting support for this conclusion. But personally, I think it comes down to your position on this underlying question. Do you believe that fundamentally _better_ data paradigms--eg those that actually compute differently & more (super)humanly--will come from ideas already articulated in the conceptual universe? Or do you think that the key to smarter data science, if it exists, has yet to be invented and may little resemble the ideas dominantly in circulation? If the latter, then we may most desperately need data _scientists_, in addition to engineers! In the sense that society would totally benefit from generating 1 new idea from “science,” even if 1000+ had been funded but not panned out.
This is true on a global, pro-social sense, but also likely on an individual basis: if you are a thinker than surely partly what matters is what role could maximize your ∂impact/∂effort, and probabilistically, science of data is at least competitive with engineering if you think the future will look different than the present and needs to be invented. |