I'd like you to respond directly to something in any of my substantive posts over the past three days. If you do so, I'll respond without any axe-grinding. Just once, do me the same courtesy that you've demanded time and again (and I have always complied). Pick one substantive argument, explain how and why you disagree, and do so in a way where I can respond with more than "we will agree to disagree." You saying that you won't read my links, that you just don't believe some citations are relevant, that I "scrape" to find citations to support my argument, so on and so forth...I can't disagree with those on the merits. I can never make you believe something you don't want to believe, nor make you read something you don't read. You want to have a real argument? Actually argue. Learn the craft. I mean, seriously. You haven't actually argued with me yet. All you've done is dismiss things you don't believe. Just go back and read your own posts.
Thats a hell of a quote. Have you ever worked in a manufacturing setting or basically any non-white collar job?
You said that corporations are the "(relative) democratizing of cooperation." And I said that corporations (i.e., capital) are at odds with democracy. You know, because democracy (demos in Greek means "of the people") is a political system of one person-one vote and corporations are an economic creation that are guided by the logic of small group's self interest and protection of the stock holders? I'm not sure you still think that this is relevant, but I thought it points to what I see as a tensions between democracy, nation-state power and sovereignty, and corporations. Globalization is in the ascendency and nation states are declining, which presents a problem for maintaining a democracy within the confines and context of a nation state. I'm pro-globalization, however.
You understand systems right? You're using one system (the elections) which very much lends itself to analytics. (Which, mind you, has nothing to do with the scientific method). All you're doing when you aggregate polls is stealing other people's work and calling your conclusion wisdom. The scientific method also doesn't have anything to do with wisdom and everything to do either accepting or rejecting a hypothesis. You're testing a theory. Well what happens when you're testing the wrong theories. Who gets to pick out the theories that are worth testing? Could it be people with opinions and intuiton? Extrapolating polls aggregating as proof that us unwashed masses have lesser opinions compared to people who pick and choose which theories to test is like saying since I once correctly predicted that Leo Messi was going to end up a world class player based on the aggregated scouts opinion, I should now be considered as a bastion of unbiased soccer wisdom. And that Gyasi Zardes is going to be he next Ronaldo.
Then go ahead and grind your axe. I'm pretty sure you're the one looking like an asshole here. Knock yourself out.
Apparently not, because I'm not sure your learned anything from them about people from different walks of life and educational backgrounds, and different methods of coming to a qualified conclusion
Two parts to this: 1) Name a single system where analytics is inappropriate. I'll then take keywords related to that system and run it through Google Scholar. 2) Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. What's wrong with that? I'm citing them. Three parts to this: 1) When we falsify hypotheses, we obtain knowledge. The best we can do is say we disproved something. You can't ever guarantee that anything will universally work. Gravity might only work in the Milky Way, for example. All you can do is disprove alternatives. To me, disproving those alternatives is the only way we can accumulate wisdom. 2) We are testing theories. If people test the wrong theories, other people will call them out on it, test a different theory, and the field moves forward. If I'm using the wrong theory, tell me a better theory. 3) You're absolutely right - intuitions and opinions do drive individual studies. That's why there are hundreds of them. Thousands. Millions. If a single person uses the wrong theory, however, they outline it in their published work. Someone else can read it, say "hey, that can't be right," and then test it on their own. That's not what I did at all. I correctly predicted fifty state electoral college elections. If you correctly predicted how fifty soccer careers would turn out in, say, their second year as a pro, then we'd be talking the same thing. Two parts: 1) Anyone from any walk of life or educational background can do what I'm doing. I've said this so many times now I wonder if people on this forum can read. Let me say it again. Anyone from any walk of life or educational background can do what I'm doing. Let me say it a third time. Anyone from any walk of life or educational background can do what I'm doing. 2) There are different methods to try and accumulate knowledge. My opinion (in case you do not click the link, I just linked to the first post on this very page) is that the scientific method is the only one that allows individuals to test their beliefs in a systematic, replicable manner AND do so in a way that leaves themselves open to being wrong. If there is another method that accomplishes these goals, or similar goals, I'm all ears. What is that method? How does it work? Honestly, I am curious to know.
Many professors baulk at the idea that social sciences are "real" sciences at all. I don't believe so, but I also think it's a difficult claim that social science has the same amount of hard science behind it as traditional sciences. And, more importantly, I think you would admit that social science does not have the certainty of traditional science's "falsification hypothesis" or "verification hypothesis" insofar as traditionally understood, hard science's proofs and scientific method rests on whether hypotheses can be verified or not. This is something that all social scientists lack. I mean, it's impossible to test or falsify whether democracy is the best political system or not. We're dealing with humans here, so irrationality and unpredictability always play an enormous role. Of course, I only deal with interpretation and deciphering meaning in my field, so I stay out of these presumptions entirely. And I think you should discuss things in terms of knowledge and epistemology (how can we know, how can we know that we know, etc) instead of wisdom. The term wisdom encompasses too much in this context, like ethics and what constitutes the good. And, finally, I would say that logical positivism and the falsification/verification hypothesis, and hence the entire scientific method, is flawed because it assumes that only empirical verification and repeated outcomes are acceptable to stating a scientific theory. The only thing these scientists don't subject to empirical observation is their fundamental supposition that only empirical evidence counts and that falsification/verification is the sole determinant of science. They test all things accept their basic premise. EDIT: I can't remember who is citing an article from 1964, but I will say that this would not be an acceptable source for my classes because I wouldn't recommend a source more than 15 years old. It's not that you can't use ideas prior to 15 years ago. It's that you would want a current source that includes a discussion of prior research.
I agree completely - moreover, even if we were able to keep everyone rational and predictable, human beings 100 years from now will act differently in response to the same stimuli, so we have a moving target. That said, we can still falsify - if something doesn't work today, it's not likely to work in the future. Now THERE's a semantic debate I'd like to get into, but I doubt I'd do more than make a fool of myself. I don't see it as a flaw, I see it as a feature. We're limiting ourselves only to those questions where we can remove any subjectivity.
No. Just no. Someone who took a simple poll average in early Nov 2012, compared that to the MOV in 2008, and simply adjusted the 2008 state MOVs downward would have gotten 48/50. And 44-45/50 would have been so far outside the MOE as to give someone near 100% certainty of the outcome I. Those states. This ignores any demo changes, turnout changes, the elasticity of certain states in terms of their underlying susceptibility to swing for vote fluctuations, and identifying any issues that may resonate positively or negatively for either candidate on a regional/state economic basis, etc. You don't even need a cocktail napkin to be 95% correct. You only need two thumbs, two web links, and the ability to do basic arithmetic in your head.
Whatever happened to this place having tumbleweeds on the weekend? I've got a bunch of cleanup - let me get my mop and pail - yes I also have PMs to answer too.
The poll aggregators I used to make my average provided my with Electoral College estimates. In July 2012 I posted an Electoral College average that rounded to 332 Obama, 206 Romney. I did not rely solely on national polls. State polls were the primary driver.
And now we have a brand new 9 page thread for this discussion. @Knave & @American Brummie - might I suggest you both use old-fashioned ignore on each other.
I appreciate the thought, but I don't use ignore, and am still happy to debate anybody on whether or not ideology exists - even Knave.
Oh, I see. Okay. That works. EDIT: But you just put in all this hard work making a new thread for everyone...