Incorrectly REPORTED AS, not falsely presented as.
And how do you think amalysis starts? It’s not like it’s unsourced or data free.
1 Like
The white face, I hates it, yes precious.
4 Likes
2 Likes
OK, you’re William Burroughs, aren’t you?
4 Likes
Both, for the purposes of discussion here.
How so? The paper just says of the authors…
Axel Geijsel
Tilburg University – The Netherlands
Rodolfo Cortes Barragan
Stanford University – U.S.A.
It’s also clearly mentioned in the appendix that it’s pending peer review (which isn’t exactly a timely process, lots of docs come out with prelims, and given the timeliness that’s pretty typical. I see the same thing work working papers over at NBER and such all the time…and lots of them are of EXTREMELY high quality and better than anything you’ll get from a media source or your typical individually created article)
How is not not ONLY ‘falsely reported as’, as is typical of our craptastic science and information journalism?
2 Likes
[quote=“William_Holz, post:273, topic:82521”]
How is not not ONLY ‘falsely reported as’, as is typical of our craptastic science and information journalism?
[/quote]
Because it’s presented as important by people here or we would’ve never be arguing about this in the first place?
How is not not ONLY ‘falsely reported as’, as is typical of our craptastic science and information journalism?
[/quote]
Because it’s presented as important by people here or we would’ve never be arguing about this in the first place?
5 Likes
Does anyone else think that the website illustrated under “The Internets” section looks vaguely familiar? dingdong, I believe?
(It’s actually a really good graphic.)
9 Likes
But is it being presented as anything other than what it is? I’ve been VERY clear that it’s interesting but requires analysis and currently cannot be presumed a smoking gun nor can it be debunked out of hand. And @anon47741163 specifically posted the Snopes link, which is about as responsible as you can get.
The only ‘wrong’ statements at this point are…
- This is a smoking gun.
1a) If this is a smoking gun, it was definitely Clinton
1b)The root cause cannot be unrelated to shenanigans - This can be dismissed and/or has been discredited
2a) Bad journalism discredits the submitted paper.
Really, the key points are that the exit poll variance is consistent with an external influence that corresponds with a lack of auditablity, and that it is not in line with past variances, right?
1 Like
Bingo.
3 Likes
Why, what a coinkydink!
2 Likes
Clearly it’s dingding with their mascot Rockdrill Rick
4 Likes
A long time ago, there was a science fiction book that won some awards, The Stars My Destination it was called. And featured in that story was a tribe of castaways that had survived out in space on their own, who had made science into a cargo cult. (For lack of peer review, I’d guess). And they’d take someone’s temperature and read it out as, “Ninety Eight point Six! Very Scientific!”. The scientific method had become as deeply enshrined in their mythology, as free market capitalism in ours.
This is the sort of thing that comes to mind whenever there’s a public figure who wants us to learn more about a scientific question with political implications.
“GMOs? That’s already been scienced, you can’t have anymore science, what kind of a witch doctor are you, asking questions that have been definitively answered already!”
And the accuser in this exchange is always ready to claim the scientific high ground, oblivious to the notion that science -when done properly- simply doesn’t work that way. It may or may not be responsible engineering, or public policy, but then political science doesn’t sound nearly as authoritative as sciencey science.
4 Likes
Not just “a science fiction book” but the best science fiction book of all time.
6 Likes
I think the only reasonable candidate in the US election to date is:
10 Likes
Amalyze how jet fuel can’t melt steel beams. thanks and good night.
Random thoughts without data are NOT comparable to preliminary analysis WITH data. That’s twice now you’ve completely disregarded the fact that there is sourceable data that anybody can access here, and the issue is a VERY basic statistical concept. It makes me wonder if perhaps you’ve just picked a side are just blindly picking opinions that suit your argument regardless of the facts at hand (which is, ironically, even worse than what you’re arguing against)
Are you that averse to finding out what the facts and root causes are? When pursuing any analysis one must prepare for news they don’t want to hear. Otherwise one is no more useful than an inanimate object.
Your blind dismissal is just as reckless as somebody announcing that this is ‘proof the Clintons hacked the machines’. I’m assuming you’ll come around in the next reply and digest the post you’re responding to (or do some research before replying), if not all you’re accomplishing validating that you can’t be trusted to make good decisions with respect to this subject matter.
Luckily, even if so, the reality doesn’t change. That’s how reality works.
1 Like
It’d sure be nice if the people most likely to recite this weren’t the ones abusing it to push blatant pseudoscience while pretending to take the factual high road, hence its presence in this thread.
*citation needed
Analyze how steel’s stiffness is affected by heat.
It doesn’t have to melt to fail.
8 Likes
