Yet another example which clarifies why data “science” is not science. It simply is not possible to learn science in a year or to become a scientists in that short of a time frame no matter how hard one studies or works. It is certainly not possible to do it with only online resources or while working another job. I do not say that to impugn the intelligence or hard work of the author in any way. A person might be able to become a technician in some fields of science (though that would still be quite difficult), but being a scientist requires years of training including the kind one can only get from working directly with other scientists. Being a scientist and doing science is about way more than book knowledge. The fact that one can become a data “scientist” with only book/online tools/knowledge is yet another reason why it is not actually science or a science. The “quick note” the author adds basically says the same thing. A collection of tools (which is what data “science” actually is) cannot be science and is not science. Some of these tools can be and are used to do actual science by actual scientists but that does not make the collection itself science.