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.
