Lectures on Advanced Quantitative Methods

for the 21st Century

Fifth Lecture:
Limits of Data Solutionism

Prof Dr Abderrazak Belabes

Islamic Economics Institute

King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30024.03842

« For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong »*

Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956), American journalist and literary critic

Introduction
Like many people, I became an engineer because I hoped to
change the world for the better by using technology to solve
problems. After reading the book by Jacques Ellul (1977)
entitled Technical System, I realized that any technical

*
Henry Louis Mencken Quotes. Available at: https://cutt.ly/RWMa68s. Last
accessed 12 September 2021.

1
progress is paid for, its negative effects are inseparable from
the positive effects.
Engineering must be connected to a comprehensive
apprehension of the world (Weltanschauung) where it is not
just about taking the new. The weakness of this approach is
its artificial impregnability and its adaptive mobility.
Engineering sciences need more than a patchwork, i.e.
something composed of miscellaneous parts. In short,
engineers need to get their heads out of the standard game
of academic competition and think about where the world is
going.
The present lecture revolves around the following
question: how can the technical system, which follows its
own logic, does not know where it is going and does not
correct its own mistakes, be considered as a tool for social
change? The reading of the MIT course syllabus dedicated to
Technology and Social Change comforted me in this process
starting from the idea that “New technologies aren’t the only
way to make social change” (Hope and Zuckerman, 2018).
The concern of alienation by technology is also raised by
Romain Boucher who left the sexiest profession of the 21st
century: data scientist. Based on the observation that
engineers play a large part in the digitization of life, this
whistleblower advocates on the one hand a critical teaching
of the technique in engineering schools and on the other
hand to train in techniques that can be appropriated by the
greatest number (Boucher, 2021, p. 56).

2
I. The Genesis of the idea of techno-science
In his book Discourse on method (1637), René Descartes
(1596-1650) wrote:
« I believed that I could not keep them concealed without
sinning grievously against the law by which we are bound to
promote, as far as in us lies, the general good of mankind. For
by them I perceived it to be possible to arrive at knowledge
highly useful in life; and in room of the speculative philosophy
usually taught in the schools, to discover a practical, by means
of which, knowing the force and action of fire, water, air the
stars, the heavens, and all the other bodies that surround us, as
distinctly as we know the various crafts of our artisans, we might
also apply them in the same way to all the uses to which they
are adapted, and thus render ourselves the lords and possessors
of nature » (Descartes, 1963, p. 634).

Through this text, Descartes establishes a link between

science and technique, between knowledge of nature and
the means that can be used by man to transform nature. The
technique relies on science to take advantage of the
understanding it provides of nature in terms of relationships
between things.
It is no longer simply a question of developing two
distinct branches of knowledge:
• The technique that aimed to understand how to act
effectively on nature.
• The science that aimed to explain the why of nature.
But rather to combine the benefits of these two aspects to
enhance their effects.

3
 Since then, science and technique have continued to
reinforce each other to relegate to the background the other
aspects of knowledge, which we now group under the term
‘learning to be’, as opposed to ‘learning to do’. The
knowledge of how to do something efficiently reduces real-
life to the method, i.e. to the calculation not in the narrow
sense of operations on numbers but in the broad sense of
relations between things (Heidegger, 1958, p. 65).
In sum, the techno-scientific approach constructs its
object through mathematical modeling which considers the
relationships between things more than the nature of things.
This shows the relevance of the observation of Henri
Poincaré (1968, p. 49) stated in his book Science and
hypothesis (1902): “Mathematicians do not study things, but
the relations between things”.
Did not Descartes himself already know that the
mathematization of the world presupposed the renunciation
of the knowledge of real-life in favor of an imaginary world?
This is what Ferdinand Alquié (2017, p. 66), a Cartesian who
cannot be suspected of irrationality, mentions very clearly in
his book Lectures on Descartes: “Descartes has very quickly
the idea that, to make the world mathematizable, to make life
mathematizable, it was necessary to replace the real world by
an imaginary world, and that it was necessary to replace the
living man, the real man, by an imaginary man, by a man able
to satisfy the conditions of our knowledge”.
By surrendering nature to mathematical truth, Descartes
opened a prolific source of troubles, and it is legitimate to
wonder what he would think of it today. The search for truth

4
has indeed been replaced by excessive mathematization, of
which quantification fiction is the ultimate virtual world
where we interact to represent ourselves. Thus, by believing
to measure the real-life, we have submitted ourselves to
excessive attitude going beyond the limits of common sense.
Technique takes possession of us as humans supposed
having their own attributes. As Jean Baudrillard rightly points
out (1970, p. 18): « Just as the wolf-child became a wolf by
living among wolves, so we too are slowly becoming
functional ». We live to the rhythm of technical objects and
their incessant succession.
II. The techno-scientific thought
If in our engineering studies, we had learned through
practice that for any problem falling within our field of
specialty, there could be an engineering solution, techno-
scientific thought, is based on the postulate according to
which has any problem, there is a technical solution.
The technique is the search for the most effective in all
areas, regardless of any other consideration (Ellul, 2008, pp.
19-20). As the Nobel Prize for Physics (1971) Dennis Gabor
(1964) notes: "Anything that is technically feasible must be
achieved, whether this achievement is judged morally good or
reprehensible" (Sadin, 2015, p. 209). As soon as things are
technically possible, sooner or later they come, whether they
change the world for good or for bad.
One of the major characteristics of technical progress is
its intrinsic ambivalence, i.e. continual fluctuation between
one thing and its opposite. Technical progress liberates as
much as it alienates. It creates problems as soon as it solves
5
them and increases itself by the solutions it brings. Hence
the terms like creative destruction process, exponential
change, or disruptive technology which are based on the
idea of the omnipotence of new technologies. As Jean-
Michel Besnier notes (2020): « This is an illusion, especially in
a world where everything is so fragile and where balances can
be destroyed by a virus or a cyber-attack. Faced with the great
challenges of the planet, it is better to have individual
initiatives that spread than a monolithic technological system,
for a more resilient world ».
The approach which perceives the phenomena only
through the prism of technique, without going to the root of
the problem, is likely to treat only the effects without
reaching the real causes. The predominance of such an
approach emphasizes the importance of the following
questions:
• Why do we think that for any problem, there must be a
technical solution?
• Can all problems be technically solved?
• Are there areas in which the technical solution is valid and
others in which the techno-scientific thinking is ineffective?
To the question, 'Why can't we solve big problems. Has
Technology Failed Us?', Jason Pontin, editor-in-chief of MIT
Technology Review, responds in an editorial dated 24
October 2012 as follows:
• The lack of interest of actors in entrepreneurial finance in
technologies that tackle major societal problems requiring
long-term investments.
6
• The power of the market has won out over the power of
alternatives solutions.
• Some problems are resistant to technology because they
are primarily political in origin.
• Others remain misunderstood, therefore without a possible
solution.
To the question what to do?, asked at the end of the
editorial, he answers: “It’s not true that we can’t solve big
problems through technology; we can. We must. But all these
elements must be present: political leaders and the public
must care to solve a problem, our institutions must support its
solution, it must really be a technological problem, and we
must understand it” (Pontin, 2012).
III. Ethics of the techno-science
Through his law according to which "what can be done
technically will necessarily be", the electrical engineer and
inventor of the hologram Dennis Gabor criticized the
indiscriminate application of technology in the industrial
world to make more and more profit, without worrying
about the ethical consequences. This is in line with the
thinking of Hans Jonas (2008) who, far from thinking that
technology is the solution to all our problems, invites us
rather to anticipate the new problems that it could pose: this
is the principle of responsibility.
This position, which distances itself from an unconcerned
technical production, has been adopted by the biologist
Jacques Testart. With his team, he succeeded in 1982 in
carrying out an in vitro fertilization, giving birth to the first
7
French test-tube baby. He continued his research for a few
years, but suddenly decided to stop it for ethical reasons.
Today, he is one of the most prominent critical thinkers
of techno-science who deny that we realize the full scope of
technique in the name of economic profitability. Technical
solutions raise more and more doubts about their real social
interest. Today, the effects of the alliance between science
and technique are out of proportion with the effects of past
inventions. As Jacques Testart (2017) notes: "If, in the past,
the impacts and risks associated with techniques invented by
man developed slowly and remained well-circumscribed,
today the consequences of these are brutal and often
dramatic".
If technical innovation is privileged under the effect of the
race towards ever-increasing competitiveness, giant firms
organize denial and doubt about solidly established
scientific advances that go against their financial interests, as
is the case for research on climate. Furthermore, the
questioning of the precautionary principle, —i.e. if one is not
sure what may happen, caution is the proper course of
action—, is one of the targets of trade negotiations as the
TAFTA (A Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement) and CETA
(Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement).
Observing the unlimited race to the use of techniques,
Ivan Illich and Jacques Ellul have noticed that from a certain
‘threshold effect’ onwards there is a shift from useful
technique to alienating technique, that which turns against
its users. Putting limits to technique is not only a reminder
that new techniques are not the only way to make a social

8
change, but also about resisting the growing oppression of
a technical system.
Through its performative nature and other iterative fixed-
point search procedures, technology affects our level of
arousal by pulling it down. The Photo 1 shows two people
riding an escalator while going to a fitness class. In a normal
conscious situation, they should take the stairs and ignore
the escalator. However, what is happening is exactly the
opposite, which is paradoxical. As Jean-Michel Besnier (2020)
notes: “New technologies modify our cognitive capacities,
weaken our intellectual capacities”. Ethics encourages us to
become aware of what we are becoming individually under
the effect of technique and what we are building collectively.

Photo 1: The performative character of the technique

Source: https://cutt.ly/TW9Vqgy

9
IV. The non-neutrality of science and technology
Neutrality consists in not taking sides in the choice of values
and in the determination of ends. To declare oneself neutral
amounts to affirming that one is a stranger to any bias, that
one does not engage in one direction or another, the
direction taken by the course of events falling under a
responsibility external to oneself.
If at first glance science and technique appear neither
good nor bad, they are what we make of them. If we look at
the facts at the beginning of the 21st century, science and
technique seem neither neutral nor entirely controllable.
The alliance between technology and science guided by
the imperatives of competitiveness in research and
development makes obsolete the idea of the neutrality of
science and technique. The idea that they are per se alien to
any value must be seriously debated in a constructive way.
Science and technique have their own end: competitiveness.
This utilitarian rationality is already a value position whose
connivance with economic interests hardly needs to be
emphasized. Competitiveness in research and development
and financial return for the short term go hand in hand.
This situation calls into question scientific and technical
research, which is at the same time a source of diagnoses,
solutions, and problems. The actors of the alliance between
technology and science have no legitimacy to define, on
their own, the common goods to be defended and the
solutions to be provided. This is why scientific orientations
like technological developments can no longer be left in the

10
hands of a few specialists, nor driven by the sole desire for
mimetic competitiveness (Testart, 2012).
Moreover, to assert the neutrality of technology is to
close our eyes to the economic and social structures that
make it possible. Technology changes the way we live, think
and work. In this respect, engineers have a societal
responsibility to serve the common good (Boucher, 2012, p.
58).
At a time when the world is becoming digitalized, the
economy is being robotized, and AI is causing concern for
the future of humanity. We must know what we are doing
and what we want to do. It is not the machine that must
make choices for society, but Man who must decide what it
will bring him. It is up to us to make the right choices, for
today and tomorrow.
Regarding Melvin Kranzberg's law, which stipulates that
“technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral”
(Kranzberg, 1986, p. 547), the most important thing is
‘neither neutral’, which means that technological innovation
implies, at the very least, an ethical adaptation, and at best
gives rise to ethical innovation. In sum, technology poses
ethical challenges and gives us the raw material to meet
those challenges. Ethical questioning encourages us to
reflect on the fundamentals of human beings and the way in
which they are impacted by technology (Puech, 2011, p. 1).
The spirit of this ethical questioning about the neutrality
of science and technique is not to be for or against change
but to anticipate and guide it instead of undergoing it. This

11
deep learning approach encourages us to shape the course
of events rather than being merely passive onlookers.

V. Limits of technical solutionism

Technical solutionism is the propensity to think that
technology can solve all of humanity's problems. In concrete
terms, technological development alone would be able to
provide effective, pragmatic, and rapid answers to the major
challenges of our modern societies, like disease, pollution,
hunger, or crime.
For solutionism, there is only one kind of problem in the
world: those with a technological solution. And the
reasoning also applies to the reverse: everything that
technology can solve appears ipso facto as a problem. In this
scheme, solutionism does not seek to understand the causes
of the problems, if there are any, but simply puts forward
solutions, because they appear to be available.
In his book To Save Everything, Click Here. The Folly of
Technological Solutionism, Evgeny Morozov (2013) invites us
not to underestimate the impact of this belief in the
omnipotence of technology. Denying himself to be
technophobic, he intends to enumerate the risks of a
simplistic view of new technologies. The danger of
solutionism lies in a superficial and short-term examination
of problems. Leaving all aspects of life to the good care of
algorithms means abandoning other economic, sociological,
and political considerations affecting decision making for the
sole benefit of technology.

12
 When we focus only on the technical solution, we can
only address one facet of the problem and not the deeper
and structural issues that lead to the problem. If our solution
only aims to alleviate the symptoms of a deeper problem, we
risk calcifying a problem and making it more difficult to
change.
The climate emergency, uberization, the economy of
small jobs, smart cities and algorithmic surveillance make us
brutally aware of the dramatic repercussions of new
technologies in the digital age. While technical progress was
supposed to serve the common good, it is escaping us. We
are subjected to it at an increasingly rapid pace. Despite this,
the response to all economic and social problems is limited
to purely technical solutions (Régnauld, Benayoun, 2021).

VI. The art of solving the right problem

The search for solutions based on digital data is seductive,
but it rarely solves anything because the search for a ‘digital
solution’ at all costs prevents us from getting to the root of
the problem. Only when we understand the fundamental
nature of the problem that it is eradicated. If we take the time
to understand the why it opens the door to a variety of
solutions.
The light thrown on solutionism invites us to be rigorous
in defining the problems we are trying to solve and
explaining why these problems are important. Without this
rigor, we miss good openings for progress, waste resources
that can enhance the quality of human life and end up

13
pursuing initiatives that are not aligned with our plan for
achieving success.
Figure 1 illustrates an approach that falls under the art of
solving the right problem1. The beauty of this approach is
that it can be applied in everyday life beyond the worlds of
research, engineering, and design.

Figure 1. Solving the Right Problem

Step 4
Step3 Write the
Problem
Step 2 Contextualize Statement
the Problem
Step 1 Justify the
Need
Establish the
Need for a
Solution

Source: Designed by the author from Spradlin (2012) data

Step 1: Establish the Need for a Solution

The purpose of this step is to articulate the problem in the
simplest terms possible:

We are looking for X to achieve Y

This simple equation clarifies the importance of the problem and
helps in obtaining resources to solve it. This initial framing
answers three questions:

1
From there, the section mainly relies on the paper of Spradlin (2012) which
will be explained from examples that the students will raise inspired by their
daily lives.
14
• What is the basic need?

It is important to focus on the need that is at the heart of the

problem instead of jumping into the search for a solution. Also
important is the definition of the scope of the solution to be
sought.

• What is the desired outcome?

Answering this question requires understanding the perspectives

of the solution to be built. It should be treated qualitatively and
quantitatively to the extent possible.
• Who benefits and why?

Answering this question leads to identifying the potential

beneficiaries of the solution.
Step 2. Establish the Need for a Solution

Looking for X to
achieve Y

What is the
What is the Who benefits
desired
basic need? and why?
outcome?

Source: Designed by the author

Step 2: Justify the Need

The purpose of this step is to explain why the problem
deserves to be solved. The following questions are central to
this stage:
• Is the effort aligned with our plan for achieving success?

15
Is the problem solving in line with our joyful plan for success?
If not, the effort should be reconsidered.
• What are the desired benefits?
The advantage that brings indescribable joy is to actively
participate in building a better world offering a better life for
all.
• How will we ensure that a solution is implemented?
This question concerns the resources to be deployed for the
development of the solution and the possibility that its
realization will come to an end. This involves a rigorous
method to ensure that the data necessary to resolve the problem
has been gathered.
Figure 3. Justify the Need

Give a good reason for

the need

Is the effort aligned How will we ensure

What are the
with our plan for that a solution is
desired benefits?
achieving success? implemented?

Source: Designed by the author

Step 3: Contextualize the Problem

Examining past efforts to find a solution can help manage time

and resources better and generate deeper thinking.

16
• What have others tried?

Investigating previous attempts makes it possible to examine

research on the topic to find out what worked or did not work,
what prevented or encouraged the use of various solutions.

• What are the internal and external constraints on implementing

a solution?

Once we have a better idea of what we want to accomplish, we

need to ask ourselves about the internal and external constraints
that prevent the project from completing or even achieving it.

Figure 4. Contextualize the Problem

Consider the problem in a

situation in which it exists and
which can help to better
understand it

What are the internal

and external constraints
What have others tried? on implementing a
solution?

Source: Designed by the author

Step 4: Write the Problem Statement

This last phase requires a full description of the problem to

be solved and the requirements to which the solution must
meet. Based on the lessons learned from the questions
relating to the previous steps, the objective is to justify what
a viable solution would be and what resources would be
required to achieve it.
Among the major questions that can help develop a
rigorous statement, the following should be remembered:

17
• Does the problem refer to other problems?

The objective is to explore the root causes of the problem

raised. Complex and entangled issues are more accessible
when broken down into discrete elements.
• What requirements must a solution meet?

It is necessary to identify the essential elements for the

development of the solution.
• What information and language should the problem statement
include?

To attract the interest of a wide audience, the problem

statement must be extremely precise, avoiding technical
concepts as much as possible.
• What do solvers need to submit?

This concerns more precisely the information required to

invest in the search for a solution
• What incentives do solver need?

The purpose of this question is to ensure that the motivation

to tackle the problem is there to complete the mission.
• How will solutions be evaluated and success measured?

Answering this question requires you to be explicit about

how to evaluate the solution. Clarity and transparency are
required for the assessment process to be rigorous and fair.

18
 Figure 5. Write the Problem Statement

Does the problem refer to other

problems?

What requirements must a solution

Give a good reason for the need

meet?

What information and language should

the problem statement include?

What do solvers need to submit?

What incentives do solver need?

How will solutions be evaluated and

success measured?

Source: Designed by the author

Conclusion
Among the main findings of this lecture, the following
should be remembered:
• The alliance of science and technique began with
Descartes' thinking (1637) through his phrase "masters and
possessors of nature".
19
• This desire to dominate nature reflects the passage from a
conception of a contemplative science of truths to a science
useful to men through technique.
• It marks the reign of techno-scientific thinking, who,
through the mechanical arts, will be able to master the
physical world and everything in it (animals, plants,
mountains, oceans, etc.).
• For the first time in human history, a belief appears that
technique will automatically lead to an improvement of the
human condition. This belief is based on a vision of the
progress determined by providence, i.e. a power sustaining
and guiding human destiny.
• Thus conceived, the technique only makes sense because
it solves any problem, not because one and the same
method solves any problem, but because the technique
adapts to each type of problem.
• It is difficult to think that all problems have a technical
solution in the sense that the technique has the answer to
everything: either because the technique is a costly answer,
or because it seems to indefinitely induce other problems.
• This conception of technique as going beyond all limits,
whatever they may be, in particular through the digital
dissemination of data, has given rise to the question of ethics
which encourages us to reflect on the effects of our creation
of technique on the living conditions of other people.
• Ethical reflection prompts us to seek solutions that do not
necessarily go through technique. In other words, new
technologies are not the only way to achieve social change
20
that improves the quality of life of populations. The most
reputable engineering schools are beginning to understand
the importance of this subject and to integrate it into
educational programs.
I end this lecture with a question that deserves to be
debated in-depth:
If we do not impose limits on our dissemination of new
technologies, especially algorithmic governance, do we not
risk destroying the very interest of social life by destroying
the basic structures of its existence?
To put it in more general terms, it will be a question of
whether a civilization conditioned by the mastery and
possession of nature is able to face the new challenges linked
to the finitude of the planet.
The technological orientation of the dominant civilization
has the merit of opening the field to a fundamental debate,
one of the most plausible scenarios of which is the ‘garden
of the rich’, i.e. the fortress of the rich against the hungry
(Emmott, 2013).

21
References
Alquié, Ferdinand (2017). Leçons sur Descartes; science et métaphysique chez
Descartes, Paris : Éditions de La Table Ronde.
Baudrillard, Jean (1970). La société de consommation, Paris : Denoël.
Boucher, Romain (2021). D'un peu de lucidité sur les ravages du techno-
libéralisme, avril, https://cutt.ly/IW2cKlU
Besnier, Jean-Michel (2020). Ces technologies modifient le rapport au
monde et à soi, L’Humanité, 2 mars, https://cutt.ly/GW4X7hZ
Descartes, René (1963). Œuvres Philosophiques, Tome I, Paris : Garnier &
Alquié.
Ellul, Jacques (2008). La technique enjeu du siècle, Paris : Economica.
Emmott, Stephen (2013). 10 Billion, London: Penguin.
Heidegger, Martin (1965). Essais et conférences, Paris : Gallimard.
Hope, Alexis and Zuckerman, Ethan (2018). Syllabus of the course
‘Technology and Social Change’, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
https://cutt.ly/nWM6cXc
Jonas, Hans (2008). Le Principe responsabilité : une éthique pour la civilisation
technologique, Paris: Flammarion.
Kranzberg, Melvin (1986). Technology and History: "Kranzberg's Laws",
Technology and Culture, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 544-560.
Morozov, Evgeny (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here. The Folly of
Technological Solutionism, New York: PublicAffairs.
Poincaré, Henri (1968). Science et hypothèse, Paris : Flammarion.
Pontin, Jason (2012). Why We Can’t Solve Big Problems. Has Technology
Failed Us?, MIT Technology Review, 24 October, https://cutt.ly/qW3fGR1
Puech, Michel (2011). Innovation technologique et rénovation éthique,
Rencontres nationales du numérique, Poitiers, 30 juin,
https://cutt.ly/dW9k994

22
Régnauld, Irénée et Benayoun, Yaël (2021). Technologies partout, démocratie
nulle part. Plaidoyer pour que les choix technologiques deviennent l’affaire de
tous, Paris : FYP Éditions.
Sadin, Éric (2015). La vie algorithmique: Critique de la raison numérique,
Paris: Éditions L’Échappé.
Spradlin, Dwayne (2012). Are You Solving the Right Problem? Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 90, No. 9, pp. 85-93, https://cutt.ly/EWGTSDd
Testart, Jacques (2012). Sciences, éthique, société, Hommes et Libertés, No.
908, octobre, https://cutt.ly/EW1eqb5
Testart, Jacques (2017). Il faut prendre le mal à la racine, Sciences critiques,
30 mai, https://cutt.ly/nWM4Gdf

Recommended Readings
Lowy, Alex (2011). Nine paradoxes of problem solving, Alex Lowy, Strategy
and Leadership, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 25-31, https://cutt.ly/cWMdlOW

Three students at Malmö University (2017). The Social Solutionism of Big

Data, Datalogue, 18 October, https://cutt.ly/aW91IJj

Recommended Videos
Morozov, Evgeny (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here,
https://cutt.ly/HW998d8

Morozov, Evgeny (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of

Technological Solutionism, https://cutt.ly/vW93DKv

Bourg, Dominique (2016). Ethique de la technique, Université de Lausanne,

14 janvier, https://cutt.ly/VW6L9F8

23
Short Bio:

Belabes Abderrazak is a philologist, philosopher of

science, economic analyst, econometrician, and
engineer.
Academically, he is a professor of economics at the
Islamic Economics Institute, King Abdulaziz University,
Jeddah.
He holds an engineering degree in electronics, MSc in
econometrics, and Ph.D. in economic analysis and
Policy from the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences (EHESS),
one of the most selective and prestigious grandes écoles of social sciences
in Paris.
He teaches advanced quantitative methods, research methods,
entrepreneurial finance, data management in endowments, and history of
economic life in Muslim societies.
His favorite readings are philology, literature, history, anthropology,
mesology and quantum physics. He can be contact at: abelabes@kau.edu.sa

24