Adhering to this, would make experimentation difficult in many fields. I am not a fan. Taking action, even if there's no evidence, in the service of the preservation of life is moral. It may not be effective (or net positive effect), but the place of sacrifice is a different moral question.
I disagree with this. Intuition is powerful evolved trait in humans, and often times has valuable information. Many believes furthermore, can only be evidenced by intuition. Logic in western countries has really dominated the culture for a long time now, and their are disastrous effects I think on the west because of it. You need logic and intuition to be whole, and you need beliefs based in facts and in feeling, not just one.<p>I also have to say, that their are some things that believing in without evidence makes your life significantly better. Believing in a meaning of life even though there is no evidence at all to support it is one example, and I don't know how anyone would function without that belief.
I think the author missed an opportunity at the end, when threading the role of AI/decision-making with respect to our lives...<p>Our behavior in society is fluid and dynamic. And so the extent to which data gets used to influence our future can, and should also reflect our changing values and beliefs.<p>The caveat is: what's the lag behind to which automated systems accurately reflect our beliefs of what's right and wrong?<p>Things like the semantics of words change regularly, at least in English.<p>And so is it safe to assume and believe that systems using "big data" accurately project and reflect society within a given moment of time?
>Add the wrong ingredients into the Big Data recipe, and what you’ll get is a potentially toxic output.<p>Shouldn't the Big Data algorithms apply the same principles?