CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 90Ethics and Social Impacts of AICybernetics and Technology in SocietyDigital Education and Society

Data science as machinic neoplatonism

Open access
McQuillan, Dan·2018·Philosophy & Technology
DOI 10.1007/s13347-017-0273-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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’.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13347-017-0273-3

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Machine classification and prediction are practices that act directly upon the world and result in tangible impact.

    “Machine classification and prediction are practices that act directly upon the world and result in tangible impact.64”

    From Algorithmic injustice: A relational ethics approach (2021) · cites this paper as [64]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. (K. Attell, Trans.) (1 edn). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
  2. Chow-White, P. A., & Green Jr., S. (2013). Data mining difference in the age of big data: communication and the social shaping of genome technologies from 1998 to 2007. International Journal of Communication, 7, 28.
  3. Harding, S. (2010). Standpoint methodologies and epistemologies: a logic of scientific inquiry for people. In World social science report, 2010: knowledge divides, pp. 173-75. France: UNESCO and International Social Science Council.
  4. Howard, A. (2012). Rethinking regulatory reform in the Internet age-O'Reilly Radar. July 25. http://radar. oreilly.com/2012/07/rethinking-regulatory-reform-in-the-internet-age.html.
  5. Husserl, E., Moran, D., Dummett, S. M., & Findlay, J. N. (2001). Logical investigations volume 2: vol 2 (new ed edition). London: Routledge.
  6. O'Reilly Media.
  7. Pentland, Alex. 2014. Social physics: how good ideas spread-the lessons from a new science. First Edition Used edition. New York: Penguin Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McQuillan, D.
Affiliations
University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
McQuillan, Dan
ORCID
McQuillan, Dan
Venue
Philosophy & Technology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-08-21
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
253-272
ISSN
  • 2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
  • 2210-5441
DOI
10.1007/s13347-017-0273-3
OpenAlex
W2736758126
Cited by
90
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 5
FWCI
16.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Philosophy & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Goldsmiths (University of London) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Goldsmiths College
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
Keywords
data science, Neoplatonism, algorithmic discrimination, algorithmic opacity, machine learning, accountability, standpoint theory, agential realism, Karen Barad, counterculture, preemption, predictive policing, due process

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review