This concluding chapter critically examines the limitations and biases of quantitative studies of war, demonstrated by the outcomes of the DATAWAR project presented in this volume. The chapter highlights the puzzle of the increasing reliance on quantitative conflict research despite its repeated failures to predict conflicts accurately. The rise of data usage in media and policy is documented, exploring journalists’ hesitance to use complex data sets. Furthermore, the reductionist nature of positivist studies must be criticized, which often portrays political actors as rational calculators devoid of social and ethical considerations. The dominance of positivist approaches in academia is driven by institutional rewards and the perceived scientific status of such methods. The challenges of improving the quality of quantitative research are discussed, emphasizing the need for more sophisticated theoretical assumptions and the recognition of context and agency. Without rejecting quantitative approaches altogether, the DATAWAR project suggests advocating for a more critical and nuanced approach to data usage in the study of war, highlighting the importance of educating policymakers and scholars about the limitations and potential dangers of quantitative research.