I have heard it confidently stated, repeatedly, by extremely technical coder types, that "once we have enough data, we don't need Statistics"
It's a pretty funny sentiment.
It's also, unfortunately, reflective of how even talented individuals pass through advanced accreditation programs without locking blades with - or at least entering a general understanding of - fundamentals. Old timey British boarding schools would have called it "Logic" back in the day.
I am reminded once more of the differences in MSFS and Xplane: one uses a statistical table based model based on existing aircraft, and the other uses laminar flow analysis, fluid dynamics, and physics. One of them tells you something about unknown aircraft, and the other most definitely does not.
I’ve had the good fortune of taking two courses at Columbia in the Social Sciences department(Andrew Gelmam and Ben Goodrich teach there). I think they probably are right up there if not the best at trying to teach students how to work practically with Statistics(specifically Bayesian statistics). Though they have always lamented that most schools do a poor job of teaching it such that kids can apply it.
It's a pretty funny sentiment.
It's also, unfortunately, reflective of how even talented individuals pass through advanced accreditation programs without locking blades with - or at least entering a general understanding of - fundamentals. Old timey British boarding schools would have called it "Logic" back in the day.
I am reminded once more of the differences in MSFS and Xplane: one uses a statistical table based model based on existing aircraft, and the other uses laminar flow analysis, fluid dynamics, and physics. One of them tells you something about unknown aircraft, and the other most definitely does not.