Both articles aim to describe the influence of big data on how humans understand the world and engage with new knowledge. In Anderson’s Wired Article, he argues that the scientific field should follow in the steps of companies like Google, as in put all models and theories aside and really hone in on what the data itself is saying and view data from a mathematical perspective. And better data and better analysis tools are all that is needed for this to occur. Opposingly, Kitchin believes that Big Data and ever-advancing data analytical tools are challenging the theories of knowledge and not for the better. He believes that Big Data is shaped by the technology and platform used to analyze it and he questions the objectivity of said data. Additionally, looking at data through a single lens, “ignores the effects of culture, politics, policy, governance and capital” on nations. I agree more with Anderson’s argument that data speaks for itself. However, I understand Kitchin’s viewpoint that allowing data to speak for itself can lead to over-simplification and generalizations and disregards cultures, traditions, and conventions. Personally I do not think that theory is dead. There is so much untouched information in the world that it is near impossible for there to be answers to everything. I also would not say that theory is dead but that more and more theories are being proved right or wrong which I do not think is a problem. Lastly, I do believe we are entering a paradigm shifting revolution and that is because the world is experiencing significant advancements in knowledge and technology which calls for more tools for understanding.