When it comes to data science, there is a lot of confusion considering the job definitions. There are still many companies who don't even have a clear idea of what kind of data science professionals they need to solve their business problems. While many aspirants and employers are still pondering over designations like data scientist and data engineer, there is one more job title that was even more obscure, but has now gained tremendous traction -- the Decision Scientist. Even though decision science is extensively similar to data science and even involves things like analytics, algorithms, machine learning and AI, the job of a decision scientist is more crucial. A data scientist is solely involved in extracting meaningful insights, but a decision scientist is more than that.
Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have developed an artificial intelligence (AI) that, with very little training, has made discoveries in material science. To spot what scientists had missed, all the AI had to do was read millions of previously published scientific papers. The AI approach is known as machine learning. It is an algorithm capable of being trained on a particular task until, after many iterations, it can produce something that makes sense. Machine-learning approaches are being used to solve many problems, and this team used it to look for latent knowledge in the world of materials science.
It is impossible to make sense of persistent controversy over certain forms of decision-relevant science without understanding what happens in the vastly greater number of cases in which members of the public converge on the best available evidence without misadventure. In order to live well--or just to live, period--individuals must make use of much more scientific information than any (including a scientist) is in a position to comprehend or verify for him- or herself. They achieve this feat not by acquiring even a rudimentary level of expertise in any of the myriad forms of science essential to their well-being but rather by becoming experts at recognizing what science knows--at identifying who knows what about what, at distinguishing the currency of genuine scientific understanding from the multiplicity of counterfeit alternatives. Their rational recognition of valid science, moreover, is guided by recourse to cues that pervade their everyday interactions with other non-experts, whose own behavior convincingly vouches for the reliability of whatever scientific knowledge their own actions depend on. Cases of persistent controversy over decision-relevance science don't stem from defects in public science comprehension; they are not a result of the failure of scientists to clearly communicate their own technical knowledge; nor are they convincingly attributable to orchestrated deception, as treacherous as such behavior genuinely is.
How should a person approach science when he/she doesn't know anything about it? How should a person approach science when he/she doesn't know anything about it? I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to this. But here are some things that I think about when I'm approaching a field I don't know much about. This means that most recent science, except about trivial things, is uncertain.
The amount of digital data that currently exists is now growing at a rapid pace. The number is doubling every two years and it is completely transforming our basic mode of existence. According to a paper from IBM, about 2.5 billion gigabytes of data had been generated on a daily basis in the year 2012. Another article from Forbes informs us that data is growing at a pace which is faster than ever. The same article suggests that by the year 2020, about 1.7 billion of new information will be developed per second for all the human inhabitants on this planet. As data is growing at a faster pace, new terms associated with processing and handling data are coming up. These include data science, data mining and machine learning. In the following section- we will give you a detailed insight on these terms.