Many of us here are engineers. Similar to our work, databcollected by scientists will eventually get to "good enough" in that interpretations are nearly indistinguishable from the truth. We don't need to understand every atom in the atmosphere to predict rain coming soon, for example. We don't need to do a full body scan to see visible breast cancer lumps.
I agree with you, but that wasn't my point. The post I replied to simply said the answer is more data. Without any more context about what kind of answer it is or how it should be used, it seemed important to me to remind whoever passes by that data alone does not make truth and its always worth keeping in mind that what we "know" today may be considered false tomorrow.
What you're talking about is more a question of scape, impact, and how accurate a prediction really needs to be. Of course we don't need to measure every atom to predict the weather - weather predictions are wrong all the time and rarely is that more than an inconvenience.
Naturally, garbage in, garbage out. Anyone who's worked any job should under stand that. And no data is ever perfect when measuring nature.
But I'm giving a best faith interpretation that the ones collecting the data are competent and have goals on what the data is collected for. We have too much talent flowing to assume the worst. We'll see how the next 4 years challenges my assumptions, though.
>What you're talking about is more a question of scape, impact, and how accurate a prediction really needs to be
Yes. That goal of data is to approximate the truth. More (good) data helps those who can interpret it to make better guesses. So the base truth of "we need more data then" is true. With a good faith interpretation.
