Why we need good computational models of peace and love
by Sebastian Benthall
“Data science” doesn’t refer to any particular technique.
It refers to the cusp of the diffusion of computational methods from computer science, statistics, and applied math (the “methodologists”) to other domains.
The background theory of these disciplines–whose origin we can trace at least as far back at cybernetics research in the 1940’s–is required to understand the validity of these “data science” technologies as scientific instruments, just as a theory of optics is necessary to know the validity of what is seen through a microscope. Kuhn calls these kinds of theoretical commitments “instrumental commitments.”
For most domain sciences, instrumental commitment to information theory, computer science, etc. is not problematic. It is more so with some social sciences which oppose the validity of totalizing physics or formalism.
There aren’t a lot of them left because our mobile phones more or less instrumentally commit us to the cybernetic worldview. Where there is room for alternative metaphysics, it is because of the complexity of emergent/functional properties of the cybernetic substrate. Brier’s Cybersemiotics is one formulation of how richer communicative meaning can be seen as a evolved structure on top of cybernetic information processing.
If “software is eating the world” and we don’t want it to eat us (metaphorically! I don’t think the robots are going to kill us–I think that corporations are going to build robots that make our lives miserable by accident), then we are going to need to have software that understands us. That requires building out cybernetic models of human communication to be more understanding of our social reality and what’s desirable in it.
That’s going to require cooperation between techies and humanists in a way that will be trying for both sides but worth the effort I think.