Machine Learning 2017-05-17 xkcd, machine learning XKCD has a wonderful new comic: These days there also was an article in MIT technology review criticising the same issue. For me this is a daily issue. My colleagues usually are happy to just get a quick test procedure; usually on smallish data. Chances are it pattern matches some noise. But nobody will find out as reading what a classifier found is near impossible. I mean sure we weed out all the nonsensical predictor variables – but even on the sensibel there is additional information mixed in. And once a machine learning procedure is through all is hashed and mixed. Personally I prefer hypothesis tests in research and leave the classification to black magicians. These point out effects that can be discussed; using not just stats but also all the other scientific knowledge we have at hand. Then we can make models and start predicting on these. Our models are on the more simplistic side, but at least they make hypotheses that are testable. And ultimately can be used as classifier. By the way another common misunderstanding is that the existence of a classifier is evidence for a pattern. It couldn’t be more wrong – machine learning will always produce a classifier, no matter whether there is sense to it or not. In scientific sense it means this can not be falsified as there only is one outcome. Too bad that too often I am required to quickly present a classifier. These classifiers just are so attractive to medics. I would like to finish with one weird kernel trick.