Reply to comment
Did anyone bother to read the article?
September 4, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 31807
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
I'll try to spell it out for you.
The article is not saying that classification methods don't work, and isn't disparaging any particular method or combination of methods. It is not even stating that you cannot achieve arbitrarily small error. The article is ONLY saying that you cannot reliably estimate the resulting classifier accuracy (out in the real world) using cross validation or bootstrapping on your dataset.
If your data sanple is large and diverse enough, you could. But you just won't ever know if that is the case or not.
Personally, I think their 'main conclusion' stretches the point a bit, probably for sensationalism's sake.