Factual Hoarding
"At 7 years old, Gilad Elbaz [now a founder of a growing data mart, Factual] wrote, 'I want to be a rich mathematician and very smart.'" (NYT, Sunday Business, March 25th, 2012)
He now is. I am glad. What's next?
"The world is one big data problem," Mr. Elbaz says. And he wants to solve it.
The world is not a data problem; the problem with this invariably variable world is that there are no facts, there are no constants.
"The elder Mr. Elbaz recalls that when he tried to explain the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to [Gilad], the son replied that the hatred would end if the two sides could just agree on the facts."
Not quite so: the world is not a factual problem but an interpretational problem (not to be confused with data-analysis problem).
[When I proclaim above that the world is an interpretational problem, am I asserting an item of objectivity or a subjective attitude? The fact of this assertion is indisputable as evidenced by this blog yet the subjective veracity of this attitude, while beyond quantification, is only personally real but real nevertheless. My point is this: subjectivity is too objectivity, but unlike President's current body mass, subjectivity can't be quite plugged into statistical models.]
"Lately, [says Elbaz] I've been thinking that we [his company Factual] need to get more personal data... I want to figure out a way to get people to leave their data to science."
A case of Factual Hoarding, anyone?
Being human is a good gig. Being humane is a better gig. Enjoy the gig whatever it is.
”
About Pavel
GOAL: to help you reclaim eating moments of your life with meaning and moderation; to help you leverage self-acceptance and compassion; to help you appreciate the ordinary perfection of what is; and to help you rediscover your essential self.
www....
Connections
re: factual hoarding
One can hoard as much as one pleases with the resources at hand. But no one mortal person and no one mortal race can ever hoard all the intelligence in the cosmos. There will be dissemination and/or emergence in other regions and people.
One can be smart , one can be reasonable and one can still have all the facts. But there is no guarantee that the other party will agree to one's arsenal of facts, arguments and reasonable logic. Instead the other party prefers to preserve their self-interests, status quo and are downright miffed by one's display of intelligence. What makes it doubly worse is that those unreasonable enough to differ do at times resort to violence.
Even if people were to leave all details of their lives including the minutiae of what they have eaten and expelled for science, it is like running around the same circle many times yet the folly of too much minutiae is the eventuality of arriving at the same conclusion as anyone else who has done it once and at the first attempt. I don't mind leaving something for science but to have too much data for the sake of data defeats the purpose of knowledge for one must learn from it , not merely possess it.
I'd rather leave the better parts of my achievements to science. The rest of me can stay out of the picture.
thank you
i sense some intensity here. thank you for sharing it.
re: thanks for posting and commenting
Thank you for sharing the above mentioned article along with your thoughts for us to ruminate over. May you be well. :-)