A Mr. Morozov complains to us that the inter-net's reliance on quantification distorts social and political processes. Data is [sic - he means "are"] assumed to reflect reality, yet the algorithms emplyed by Google, Twatter and other sites are selective rather than objective measures, and can be manipulated to "game the system." Algorithms have also become increasingly common in police work, journalism, education and elsewhere, but many are not subject to public scrutiny. Mr. Morozov suggests that third parties be allowed to audit them for biasses.
"Solutionism" - his own word I think - is "the belief that all problems can be "fixed" ["solved" I think] through reason and quantification. It is reductionist, worships efficiency and utility, and abhors ambiguity and complexity. Solutionism has had a lengthy pedigree in Western Culture and destructive consequences in human history." What is kleines c's view - does he give ambiguity room?
And Mr. Morozov makes a further point. "Ordinary people," he asserts, "are mostly interested in reviewing their own experience, not in making sense of a given work of Art." (The "I know what I like" crowd what! Very subjective.)
" ... What is kleines c's view - does he give ambiguity room?"
I like to attach numbers to things, but I recognise that this oversimplifies any analysis I subsequently undertake, as a single number cannot possibly encapsulate the complexity of the human condition, for example, 42.
The question is therefore how do I subsequently give ambiguity room? Well, I have to switch from numbers to words, from mathematics to language, and try and explain any ambiguity.
Of course, there are plenty of occasions on which my choice of numbers and/or words is simply not up to the task. Can another artform, for example, music, then breach the gap (in understanding)?
I have a suspicion that all great art, at its heart, has an underlying ambiguity, Sydney Grew. Who knows for sure?