We are all familiar with the phrase "We can not see the forest for the trees", and this certainly applies to us as data scientists. We can become so involved with what we're doing, what we're building, the details of our work, that we don't know what our work looks like to other people. Often we want others to understand just how hard it was to do what we've done, just how much work went into it, and sometimes we're vain enough to want people to know just how smart we are.
So what do we do? How do we validate one action over another? Do we build the trees so others can see the forrest? Must others know the details to validate what we've built, or is it enough that they can make use of our work?
We are all made equal by our limitation to 24 hours in a day, and we must choose what we listen to and what we don't, what we focus on and what we don't. The people who make use of our work must do the same. John Locke proposed the philosophical thought experiment, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If we explain all the details of our work, and no one gives the time to listen, will anyone understand? To what will people give their time?
Let's suppose that we can successfully communicate all the challenges we faced and overcame in building our magnificent ideas (as if anyone would sit still that long), what then? Thomas Edison is famous for saying, “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”, but today we buy lightbulbs that work, who remembers all the details about the different ways he failed? "It may be important for people who are studying the thermodynamic effects of electrical currents through materials." Ok, it's important to that person to know the difference, but for the rest of us it's still not important. We experiment, we fail, we overcome, thereby validating our work because others don't have to.
Better to teach a man to fish than to provide for him forever, but there are an infinite number of ways to successfully fish. Some approaches may be nuanced in their differences, but others may be so wildly different they're unrecognizable, unbelievable, and beg for incredulity. The catch is (no pun intended) methods are valid because they yield measurable results.
It's important to catch fish, but success is not consistent nor guaranteed, and groups of people may fish together so after sharing their bounty everyone is fed. What if someone starts using this unrecognizable and unbelieveable method of fishing? Will the others accept this "risk" and share their fish with those who won't use the "right" fishing technique, their technique? Even if it works the first time that may simply be a fluke they say, and we certainly can't waste any more resources "risking" hungry bellies now can we.
So does validation lie in the method or the results? If you're going hungry you might try a new technique, or you might have faith in what's worked until the bitter end. If a few people can catch plenty of fish for the rest, let the others experiment. Maybe you're better at making boats, so both you and the fishermen prosper. Perhaps there's someone else willing to share the risk because they see your vision, your combined efforts giving you both a better chance at validation.
If we go along with what others are comfortable with, they'll provide fish. If we have enough fish for a while, we can experiment and potentially catch more fish in the long run. Others may see the value in our experiments and provide us fish for a while until we start catching fish. In the end you need fish, and if others aren't willing to give you fish you have to get your own fish, whatever method yields results.