Is Unsupervised Clustering Somehow Truer?

Abstract

Scientists increasingly approach the world through machine learning techniques, but philosophers of science often question their epistemic status. Some philosophers have argued that the use of unsupervised clustering algorithms is more justified than the use of supervised classification, because supervised classification is more biased, and because (parametric) simplicity plays a different and more interesting role in unsupervised clustering. I call these arguments the No-Bias Argument and the Simplicity-Truth Argument. I show how both arguments are fallacious and how, on the contrary, the use of supervised classification is at least as justified as the use of unsupervised clustering.