Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to learn data science

dataquest.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: How to learn data science

#41

Post by rrmm »

mziel wrote: post #12
pvnick wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hell even William Gosset was doing "data science" when he popularized the Student T distribution while working for the Guinness Brewery back in 1908.

I lived through Statistics, Business Analysis, Decision Analytics, Data Analytics, Data Mining now Data Science. Same thing renamed over and over again. Regarding post above, it's right. Data scientist is someone better at statistics (classical stats, bayesian, machine learning) than computer scientist, and better at programming (SQL, R/Python for building models) than academic statistician. Plus a teaspoon of visual…

AI has gone through the same sort of buzzword treadmill and even programming in general. Only after living through a few cycles does it really become obvious how cyclic these sorts of trends are.

I'm trying to work on being less jaded about it, and not letting my annoyance with the-new-trendy-thing-that-i-remember-doing-years-ago-under-a-different-name get in the way of learning new technology and new lessons.

But it's a struggle.

Re: How to learn data science

#42

Post by whistlerbrk »

nabla9 wrote: post #26
minimaxir wrote: post #6

The actual problem with learning "data science" is making inferences and conclusions which do not violate the laws of statistics . I've seen many submissions to Hacker News and Reddit's /r/dataisbeautiful subreddit where the author goes "look, the analysis supports my conclusion and the R^2 is high, therefore this is a good analysis!" without addressing the assumptions required for those results. Of course, not every…

Roughly 80% of data scientists I know have PhD in something very math heavy. Rest have masters degrees. There are programmers who can assist them doing the grunt work but it's just basic programming to assist analysts to crunch data. If you want to do data science for real: 1. Get Masters of PhD from statistics, computer science, economics, physics or some other heavy field and specialize data analysis in that field.…

> Good data science is not based on collecting large amounts of data passively and then mining it mindlessly. You need to ask right questions and design data collection and modeling process based on those questions.

This resonates. That is, picking and designing features. Also understand dependent variables and knowing how to test for that, which is the biggest mistakes leading to flawed conclusions I see from the 'general public'.

Re: How to learn data science

#43

Post by stdbrouw »

whistlerbrk wrote: post #42
nabla9 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roughly 80% of data scientists I know have PhD in something very math heavy. Rest have masters degrees. There are programmers who can assist them doing the grunt work but it's just basic programming to assist analysts to crunch data. If you want to do data science for real: 1. Get Masters of PhD from statistics, computer science, economics, physics or some other heavy field and specialize data analysis in that field.…

> Good data science is not based on collecting large amounts of data passively and then mining it mindlessly. You need to ask right questions and design data collection and modeling process based on those questions. This resonates. That is, picking and designing features. Also understand dependent variables and knowing how to test for that, which is the biggest mistakes leading to flawed conclusions I see from the 'g…

What do you mean by testing for dependent variables?

Re: How to learn data science

#44

Post by davemel37 »

Anyone interested in data science should first study cognitive psychology. The CIA has a manual on the psychology of intelligence analysis that is a must read for anyone pursuing any analytical job.

If you dont understand how your mind sees, processes, retains and recalls data...how can you possibly analyze it accurately?

Re: How to learn data science

#45

Post by DataWorker »

nabla9 wrote: post #26
minimaxir wrote: post #6

The actual problem with learning "data science" is making inferences and conclusions which do not violate the laws of statistics . I've seen many submissions to Hacker News and Reddit's /r/dataisbeautiful subreddit where the author goes "look, the analysis supports my conclusion and the R^2 is high, therefore this is a good analysis!" without addressing the assumptions required for those results. Of course, not every…

Roughly 80% of data scientists I know have PhD in something very math heavy. Rest have masters degrees. There are programmers who can assist them doing the grunt work but it's just basic programming to assist analysts to crunch data. If you want to do data science for real: 1. Get Masters of PhD from statistics, computer science, economics, physics or some other heavy field and specialize data analysis in that field.…

No. A phd in statistics or economics means almost nothing at this point. Even if it did, truly, signal mastery of the content, which it doesn't anymore, it would signal to most people who do this kind of work that you're way overqualified while simultaneously being totally ignorant of the day-to-day work of actual data scientists.

If you want to be a useful data scientist, do a lot of work with data. If you have strong programming skills and are flexible and a quick learner then you will do well.

Spending the better part of your young adulthood getting a phd in statistics, unless you want to go into academia, just makes you look like a fool.

Re: How to learn data science

#46

Post by SG- »

lessthunk wrote: post #23

Data science is a stupid buzzword. The ideal candidate knows enough about IT to massage data, the more the knows about the domain to investigate the better, and for sure some statistics. Most of all always do sanity checks .. does it make sense? Can it be? Is the data correct? It is an art. Like writing awesome code, etc. practice, practice, and working with experienced people is key.

At least it's not something engineer like every other job in the tech field.

Re: How to learn data science

#47

Post by DataWorker »

pvnick wrote: post #3

Good article for beginners. A couple thoughts, just to build on what the author said: First off, data science == fancy name for data mining/analysis. Wanted to clear that up due to buzzwordy nature of "data science." Learn SQL - this is the big one. You must be proficient with SQL to be effective at data science. Whether it's running on an RDBMS or translating to map/reduce (Hive) or DAG (Spark), SQL is invaluable. I…

This is the truth. People can't do simple statistics, even with advanced degrees. In many cases advanced degrees make things worse. The ability to reason about data and have strong fundamentals in math statistics is what's needed.

Someone else mentioned Gelman's blog. That's a great place to find evidence that phd's do not lead to an increased ability to ferret out "truth" or insight from data. In many cases they just hide the mistakes so that others without that background don't know they're being misled.

Re: How to learn data science

#48

Post by decisiveness »

nabla9 wrote: post #26
minimaxir wrote: post #6

The actual problem with learning "data science" is making inferences and conclusions which do not violate the laws of statistics . I've seen many submissions to Hacker News and Reddit's /r/dataisbeautiful subreddit where the author goes "look, the analysis supports my conclusion and the R^2 is high, therefore this is a good analysis!" without addressing the assumptions required for those results. Of course, not every…

Roughly 80% of data scientists I know have PhD in something very math heavy. Rest have masters degrees. There are programmers who can assist them doing the grunt work but it's just basic programming to assist analysts to crunch data. If you want to do data science for real: 1. Get Masters of PhD from statistics, computer science, economics, physics or some other heavy field and specialize data analysis in that field.…

Assuming that smart autodidacts can't obtain sound statistics knowledge is selling many people short.

Re: How to learn data science

#49

Post by anderspitman »

These principles are useful when learning anything really: human language (immersion), programming (build something), sports (practice), etc.

That said, as someone who worked in software engineering for 5 years without a degree, and recently returned to school, I would say be careful not to discount studying theory at the same time you're practicing your craft. I really think a combined approach of structured university courses and MOOCs, including reading textbooks, along with applying the knowledge has been the best approach for me.

I was arrogant about "not needing" a degree for years, feeling justified by the fact that I was making very valuable contributions as an engineer, until I finally went back to school and realized how valuable theoretical knowledge can be.

Re: How to learn data science

#50

Post by Baghard »

decisiveness wrote: post #48
nabla9 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roughly 80% of data scientists I know have PhD in something very math heavy. Rest have masters degrees. There are programmers who can assist them doing the grunt work but it's just basic programming to assist analysts to crunch data. If you want to do data science for real: 1. Get Masters of PhD from statistics, computer science, economics, physics or some other heavy field and specialize data analysis in that field.…

Assuming that smart autodidacts can't obtain sound statistics knowledge is selling many people short.

I think you are right in that it sells many people short, but then again having no good academic credentials is selling yourself short.

Data science is not like security. There it is more accepted that good engineers/researchers do not necessarily have the best accreditation. It seems that data science/engineering is turning around to this though.

It's not that autodidacts can not build bridges, it is that the people with the data and money do not want their bridges build by autodidacts.

Anyway... back to studying http://statweb.stanford.edu/~tibs/ElemStatLearn/ for me :).

Post reply on HN