more data; is that just more signal and more noise or actually less?

So the adage goes… get as much data as possible and if you can get twice as much you get twice the outcome.  We are taught in data collection “you want the best signal to noise you can get” – Is it true that if you get twice as much data do you get better results or do you get twice the signal, twice the noise and eventually less wisdom.

If you have all the trades on a specific stock price, are you more able/likely/ capably of determine trends and outcomes.   

If you traded some of this second by second trading data for some wider economic data will the results improve. Less data.

Where is this thought going?

Should we stop gathering all data and focus on that data that has relevance, connection or meaning ( don’t collect for collection sake).  We don’t collect data hoping to find insights but start by thinking that what is the least data we need to provide the desired outcome? Yes we will only find what we are looking for, so it is self fulfilling but this is not selection or filtering (The Filter Bubble) but will improving signal to noise actually great any new value?