I lie somewhere in the middle of these two opinions, but closer to Kitchin’s side. While Anderson is stating that he believes theory is dead, Kitchin believes that theory is not dead, but yet that we have simply entered a new paradigm. It is understandable that Anderson is making the case that theory and speculation is dead. With new technology and software coming out constantly, our data methods are getting quicker and smarter every day. Because of this, it is easy to see how data sets can come from just about everything now-a-days. From cell phone data to GIS software, everything can be tracked. Anderson uses this as justifiable means to say that this is why we dont need theory. Since everything can be quantified we can predict outcomes, future’s of companies and such, and ultimately what will happen given any sort of choice. I don’t entirely believe this view, because I think the world is more unreliable than that. In the blink of an eye, a natural disaster could hit us with no warning. Nature does not abid by data, it abids by the rules of nature- which is nothing. Kitchin, on the other hand, states that there is a new paradigm, a new pattern, that includes the more data-intensified elements of this world. This is more so believable personally, because it doesnt rely of data science alone. He just says that data science is he next “big thing” in science. Kitchin understands that big data is an algorithim per se, and, yet we still cannot use only data science to analyze everything in this universe. To drop all science that has helpedus for the past hundreds of years, would not be smart to me, because we have only had this technology for several years. To drop all science for data science isn’t the right move personally. This new paradigm does, however, use current data science to improve calculations and analysis. The future is unknown and I don’t believe any sort of technology can change that.