Nope! No theory of heat is a compression of therometer readings; no theory of gravity, of orbits; no theory of atoms of spectra. No theories compress measurments!
Such a thing is pure superstition. Heat is not the motion of thermometer fluid.
> not the function's confabulated "causal" justifications.
Nope!
We construct an experiment by counter-factual analysis of its causal semantics; we do not simply test whether observable quantities match prior data. Arbitary associative models match arbitary amounts of prior data. This is the opposite of science.
We test scientific models by creating new experiments; it isnt "the data" which matters here, but that the experiment is designed to test the causal assumptions of the model.
If the experiment doesn't: control causes, identify novel measures with potential causes, etc. then any data collected is useless.
This is why you need, you know: randomised controlled trials, microscopes, satellites, ... etc.
"Data" in the ML sense does not matter. This is pure superstitious pseudoscience. Science is a process of creating data under experimental conditions designed to be counter-factual tests of theories. Science is about the data generating process (reality), not our measurements of it.
