So Nate Silver Was Exactly Right

By -
How many of the people saying he was wildly biased will now recant?

My prediction: none of them will. They will simply continue working for Fox News or the Wall Street Journal.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy5:09 PM

    Whoa whoa whoa there tiger... Are you saying he was exactly right because he correctly called 50 out of 50 states correctly? Or do you mean, because Obama won?

    If just the latter, I don't think that works. I mean, even Silver himself kept stressing that he wasn't predicting an Obama win with certainty.

    I agree that a lot of the blowhards had stupid articles, but I just want to make sure you don't commit the opposite mistake here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah7:00 PM

      "Are you saying he was exactly right because he correctly called 50 out of 50 states correctly?"

      Yes. That's pretty damned accurate.

      Delete
    2. Bob Murphy7:22 PM

      OK I didn't know how his state-by-state predictions had fared; that's why I asked. Then your title is fine.

      You have my permission to continue blogging.

      Delete
  2. PH1:25 AM

    Now that Romney has won the biggest landslide since Dewey defeated Truman, I suspect Dick Morris is headed for the history books. The others' blunders will soon be forgotten.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more