Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?

In message <7Lzrc.20286$zw.10403_at_attbi_s01>, Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com> writes
>"Anthony W. Youngman" <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:uMz8IRDsXHqAFw+B_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> But both are attempts to apply a mathematical model to a real world
>> problem. Viewed from a dispassionate oversight, both are instances of
>> the SAME problem, and the same techniques can be applied to solving
>> them. Namely "how well does my mathematical model work in the real
>> world?".
>
>It's clear you love this analogy, but it doesn't work.
>
>What we put in the database is data, not the real world. Neither do
>we attempt to say anything about the real world with our databases.
>Consider a payroll database. Does it contain one single fact about
>the natural world? It does not. It has names, social security numbers,
>addresses, salaries, phone numbers, etc. These are all 100% human
>constructs; none of them are found anywhere in the real world; they
>are exclusively in our heads.

Well, if they're not facts about the real world, then I presume they are imaginary musings? In which case they are no better than fantasy. So why bother with them?

Names, Social Security Numbers, etc etc are all ways of describing real things (in these cases a person). An address describes a real thing - a building. Etcetera.

But the point is, if you do not have some way of FORMALLY converting between a person (you, me, whoever) or a phone (a physical thing you can hold) or a building (something you can look at), and the data that describes those things, then your theory of data MUST be unscientific.

Bearing in mind that this is the study of philosophy ("does the tree, continue to be, if no-one's there to see") I'm quite happy with a scrappy attempt to explain things. But the conversion has to be both ways - with "mass" we know exactly what Newton meant in his mathematical theory, and we know exactly what we mean in the real world when we pick up a heavy object. And we (now, thanks to Einstein) know that those two definitions (the real and the mathematical) don't quite tie up.

But if you can't give me a way of converting between "data" and the real-world objects it describes - in both directions! - then by definition any theory of data must be unfalsifiable, therefor it is unscientific, therefor it lives very firmly in the realms of mathematics and religion. I'm sorry, but I'm a scientist by training and I most definitely don't believe in that religion.

Cheers,
Wol

-- 
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999