Data Science as Machinic Neoplatonism

Abstract

Data science is not simply a method but an organising idea. Commitment to the new paradigm overrides concerns caused by collateral damage, and only a counterculture can constitute an effective critique. Understanding data science requires an appreciation of what algorithms actually do; in particular, how machine learning learns. The resulting 'insight through opacity' drives the observable problems of algorithmic discrimination and the evasion of due process. But attempts to stem the tide have not grasped the nature of data science as both metaphysical and machinic. Data science strongly echoes the neoplatonism that informed the early science of Copernicus and Galileo. It appears to reveal a hidden mathematical order in the world that is superior to our direct experience. The new symmetry of these orderings is more compelling than the actual results. Data science does not only make possible a new way of knowing but acts directly on it; by converting predictions to pre-emptions, it becomes a machinic metaphysics. The people enrolled in this apparatus risk an abstraction of accountability and the production of 'thoughtlessness'. Susceptibility to data science can be contested through critiques of science, especially standpoint theory, which opposes the 'view from nowhere' without abandoning the empirical methods. But a counterculture of data science must be material as well as discursive. Karen Barad's idea of agential realism can reconfigure data science to produce both non-dualistic philosophy and participatory agency. An example of relevant praxis points to the real possibility of 'machine learning for the people'.

Algorithmic Profiling of Job Seekers in Austria: How Austerity Politics Are Made Effective

“…According to the AMS president in EQUAL BOARD, their data allows the AMS to explore manifold attributes of job seekers and correctly identify those that correlate with the prospect on the labor market. This reference to the amount and variety of data draws on a standard trope of big data, namely that it is a detailed, encompassing and "truthful" representation of "reality, " following the ideal of mechanistic objectivity (Daston and Galison, 2007;Rieder and Simon, 2016;McQuillan, 2018). As scholars in the field of critical data studies and STS have shown, these claims are misleading (Boyd and Crawford, 2012), because they are always produced within a specific context and with a particular goal in mind (Bowker, 2005).…”

Robot Rights?

“…The automation of complex social, political and cultural issues requires that these complex, multivalent and contextual and continually moving concepts be quantified, measured, classified and captured through data [29]. Extrapolations, inferences and predictive models are then built often with real life actionable applications with grave consequences on society's most vulnerable.…”

Algorithmic accountability and digital justice: A critical assessment of technical and sociotechnical approaches

“…The positive dimension of digital justice involves a drive to develop ways to protect and enhance people's involvement with big data. This may involve a move toward algorithmic regulation (Mcquillan, , p. 568). The negative dimension involves developing ways to redress people's grievances when they believe that they have been wronged by institutional algorithmically‐mediated decision making.…”