The author makes the point that data are not enough, but then doesn't drop the other shoe. The "other shoe" in this case is that data collection can only describe, but cannot explain.
If I collect data about all those points of light in the night sky, I can then say, "There are many points of light in the night sky". But that is only a description -- it lacks an explanation, for which the data collection effort can only be a preliminary step.
The social sciences are famous for describing things they cannot explain. When we make an effort to explain what has been described, we cross the line into science.
> ... behind every model and every data set is a political process that chose that data and built that model and defined success for that model.
Not in science. This is precisely what science is meant to avoid. All we need to do is practice science rather than perform naive data collection followed by shallow conclusions.
If I collect data about all those points of light in the night sky, I can then say, "There are many points of light in the night sky". But that is only a description -- it lacks an explanation, for which the data collection effort can only be a preliminary step.
The social sciences are famous for describing things they cannot explain. When we make an effort to explain what has been described, we cross the line into science.
> ... behind every model and every data set is a political process that chose that data and built that model and defined success for that model.
Not in science. This is precisely what science is meant to avoid. All we need to do is practice science rather than perform naive data collection followed by shallow conclusions.