The Quality of Data

The Quality of Data:

Reflections on a numberless society

The quality of data can be strange,

It piles uncounted in pools and puddles

Shaped by where it falls. It is twice misgrasped:

It eludes him that describes and him that listens.

Some concepts seem so basic that it requires considerable willpower to imagine one's existence without them. Numbers are probably not inherently part of our human biology, but once introduces into our framework of thought, it is hard not to enumerate the world around nearly automatically.

But we also verbalize by quality without resorting to quantities for everything we encounter. Probably the qualities of our experienced surroundings are the much more frequently noted characteristics and data we process into our decisions. Many people happily admit to be “math-impaired” without any particular feeling of loss.

So, suppose the only language and concepts for dealing with the world were qualitative, not quantitative. Absence or presence (“out” or “in” to our spherical friends below) of some quality, but no measure of its absolute volume or intensity. All attempts to state such comparison were only relative (bigger than a breadbox, smaller than a refrigerator; or bigger than a large weasel, smaller than a small bison). How lost would you be until you had seen a bison (and a weasel) or had its size placed relative to your own experience?

The mathematicians amongst us would say there is still math to be done with such relations, groups/members, and opposites. Some people simply cannot be distracted from their proclivities, but it will be the rare person today who will follow their symbolic notations and computational gymnastics. Most of us will drop back to our non-arithmetic intuitions and pattern recognitions.

Earthling: I come in peace. Does one of you speak for all here?

Quals (together): I speak here.

Earthling: No, one at a time please. Who is your leader?

Quals (together): Fred! Fred is leader here, bigger than me, bigger than Sam, bigger than Walter, but lesser than Big Bertha. Big Bertha is not here.

Earthling: Fine, then I wished to speak to Fred. … Hello, are you Fred?

Fred: Yes, I am Fred.

Earthling: Fred, we come from a star and planet 184 light-years from here. We want to be friends and learn from each other.

Fred: Greetings. Learning is good. Quals like to learn. And to teach. But, Fred does not understand words you use.

Earthling: How can you answer if you do not understand what I say.

Fred: I do and I do not understand. I ignore when I do not. Why do you say “we” and not “I”. “we” is group.

Earthling: There are 27 other crew members on the spaceship. I came out to meet you, but we all wish to be friends.

Fred: What is “twenty-seven” of not-this crew members?

Earthling: 27 is a number. (holds up all fingers and clenches/unclenches twice, then one hand once, and finally extends two fingers). This many.

Fred: (spherical, no digits) Huh? “Twenty-seven” is a dance?

Earthling: No, a number. (scratches 27 lines in the dirt while counting) 1, 2, 3, …, 27!

Fred: Oh, “twenty-seven” is Art? Both Visual and Performance? What is “one”, “two”, “three” …?

Earthling: Can you not count?

Fred: What is “count”?

Earthling (looking at his commpad): “To name quantities by sequential accumulation.” Gee, I hardly understand that definition. It is like you see one thing and then you see another, so you have two, and then you see another and you have three, and so forth.

Fred: Another is “two” and is “three”? What is the difference?

Earthling: Uh, one? Gee, you are getting me confused, too.