Data Science vs Statistics
The cluster debates whether 'data science' is just rebranded statistics, econometrics, or programming, questions the scientific rigor and required backgrounds like PhDs or physics for data scientists, and discusses skills gaps in hiring.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Was? As I always said it is Statistics. If you want "data scientist" employ Statisticians.
Aren't all scientists "data scientists"?
"Data science" my ass. It's called statistics, econometrics and programming.
You're being downvoted but I do agree with the overall sentiment, people do underestimate data science not realising you have to be an expert of the field (statistics, ML, etc) in order to truly be a "scientist" otherwise, you'll get stuck on the first non-traditional problem you face.
Oh, my mistake for assuming familiarity! Data Science in this case.
Data science is probably a better description.
why would you be looking primarily at physicists if you are trying to find data scientists??
what have data scientists generally studied if not for statistics?
what's missing from any discussion here or in many of these "this is the new hotness" posts is this: science.where's the science? it is, after all, a data scientist role. where is learning to do actual science?what the world's been describing is an analyst or an engineering position, not science. if you don't know how to ask questions, interpret results, structure experiments - then you don't know science, so quit calling yourself a scientist. science involves a rigor of thinking and doing
COI: author is a "data science" recruiter and the field has not coalesced down to a static definition. Caveat lector