Authors : George Kimwomi; Kennedy Ondimu

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 3 - March

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/yny25ena

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/5fpaejce

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25mar404

Google Scholar

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 15 to 20 days to display the article.

Abstract : The advent of Big Data Analytics has transformed scientific research by enabling pattern recognition, hypothesis generation, and predictive analysis across disciplines. However, reliance on large datasets introduces epistemic risks, including data biases, algorithmic opacity, and challenges in inductive reasoning. This paper explores these risks, focusing on the interplay between data- and theory-driven methods, biases in inference, and methodological challenges in Big Data epistemology. Key concerns include data representativeness, spurious correlations, overfitting, and model interpretability. Case studies in biomedical research, climate science, social sciences, and AI-assisted discovery highlight these vulnerabilities. To mitigate these issues, this paper advocates for Bayesian reasoning, transparency initiatives, fairness-aware algorithms, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Additionally, policy recommendations such as stronger regulatory oversight and open science initiatives are proposed to ensure epistemic integrity in Big Data research, contributing to discussions in philosophy of science, data ethics, and statistical inference.

Keywords : Epistemic Risks, Big Data Analytics, Scientific Discovery, Inductive Reasoning, Large-Scale Datasets.

References :

1. Bogen, J., & Woodward, J. (1988). Saving the phenomena. The Philosophical Review, 97(3), 303–352.
2. Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.
3. Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.
4. Floridi, L. (2012). Big data and their epistemological challenge. Philosophy & Technology, 25(4), 435–437.
5. Franklin, A. (2009). Experiment, right or wrong. Cambridge University Press.
6. Gigerenzer, G., & Marewski, J. N. (2015). Surrogate science: The idol of a universal method for scientific inference. Journal of Management, 41(2), 421–440.
7. Kitchin, R. (2014). Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1(1), 1–12.
8. Leonelli, S. (2016). Data-centric biology: A philosophical study. University of Chicago Press.
9. Lipton, Z. C. (2018). The mythos of model interpretability. Communications of the ACM, 61(10), 36–43.
10. Magnani, L. (2013). Understanding violence: The intertwining of morality, religion, and violence: A philosophical stance. Springer.
11. McElreath, R. (2020). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
12. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21.
13. Mitchell, T. M. (2021). Machine learning. McGraw-Hill Education.
14. Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606.
15. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishing Group.
16. Parker, W. S. (2013). Ensemble modeling, uncertainty and robust predictions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(3), 213–223.
17. Popejoy, A. B., & Fullerton, S. M. (2016). Genomics is failing on diversity. Nature, 538(7624), 161–164.
18. Snijders, C., Matzat, U., & Reips, U.-D. (2012). "Big data": Big gaps of knowledge in the field of internet science. International Journal of Internet Science, 7(1), 1–5.en.wikipedia.org
19. Tufekci, Z. (2014). Big questions for social media big data: Representativeness, validity and other methodological pitfalls. Proceedings of the 8th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 505–514.
20. Zednik, C. (2019). Solving the black box problem: A normative framework for explainable artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 32(4), 469–490.