|
|
|
|
|
by lignuist
4400 days ago
|
|
I used that strategy for parsing gigabytes of CSVs containing arbitrary natural language from the web - try to get these files fixed, or figure out a grammar for gigabytes of fuzzy data... My approach never failed for me, so telling me that my strategy does not work is a strong claim, where it reliably did the job for me. Your examples are all valid, but what you are describing are theoretical attacks on the method, while the method works in almost all cases in practice. We are talking about two different viewpoints: dealing with large amounts of messy data on one hand and parser theory in an ideal cosmos on the other hand. |
|
As such, the two viewpoints really are: not really caring about the soundness of your results and solving the actual problem.
Now, maybe you really can show that the bugs in the methods you use only cause negligible noise in your results, in which case it might be perfectly fine to use those methods. But just ignoring errors in your deduction process because you don't feel like doing the work of actually solving the problem at hand is not pragmatism. You'll have to at least demonstrate that your approach does not invalidate the result.