Reexaming Data
These days we can measure almost everything with technology, even those things which are invisible and intangible. Our scientific and technological developments have extended our cognitive perception, and in effect, have become a part of our everyday life. With the help of new technologies, we now have new methods for measuring and perceiving things like humidity, wind, noise, and blood pressure. It seems like this wealth of data means we have the capability to know more than before, but how much do we really know? When we see data like 0.0001 percent of Nitrogen, or 1 terabyte of space, what does it really mean to us? Aren't they just subdivisions of the unknowable? Why then do we insist on defining the unquantifiable?
When confronted with the unknown, our inclination is often to respond with phrases like: "I don't know, but he knows", or, "I think I know". This would have it seem like the existence of objective data is more important to us than what it represents, or how much we are capable of understanding it. What it really comes down to is that we rarely know how to deal with "unknownness" at all. When in doubt, we prefer to think "something" is there.
Case Study: Other
Consider the concept of "otherness" in data. If one were to look up the scientific components for human inhalation and exhalation, she would see (at the bottom of a long list) an other category. Other is defined by a small amount of data whose instability or inaccuracy makes it difficult to read in more detail. Does this label lead us to infer that the data which it represents is universally similar? In the case of a breath, this other variable (0.07 percent other in our inhaled breath and 4.1 percent other in our exhaled breath) changes depending on our mental, physical, environmental, and emotional status. The components making up an exhaled breath after a stressful exam, or an inhaled breath in a smoky bar will inherently reveal our subjective, individual experiences. Despite its unifying label, components identified as other may not be an objective thing after all.
