tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post3455874282560782528..comments2024-03-18T22:32:52.802-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: "Data" the buzzword vs. data the actual thingNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-75940907864074341332014-06-25T15:45:47.560-04:002014-06-25T15:45:47.560-04:00If you want to see some additional godawful "...If you want to see some additional godawful "analysis" from 538, look through Harry Enten's stories. More often than not, the data he cites is just plain wrong. He either doesn't know how to cross-reference, or just has no problem flatly lying to his readers.<br /><br />One such example was when he stated that the GOP, as of late April, was in the same statistical polling position as they were in 2010.<br /><br />The problem? The poll he cited, Pew Research, didn't even perform polling at this point in 2010. And an aggregate of generic ballot polls showed a 1.9 point drop for the GOP from their 2010 figures.<br /><br />Regardless of what your political affiliations are, I think that's a poor enough performance (one of many) to warrant asking what in God's name Nate was thinking by hiring this team of boobs?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02312963321668256516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-87631577836365204062014-04-02T05:55:56.741-04:002014-04-02T05:55:56.741-04:00Checkout here worlds famous collection of coolest ...Checkout here worlds famous collection of coolest website imadude.com. This cool website is only for you. Imadude.com provides latest funny picture, videos and much <br /><br />more.For more info feel free to visit on our website <a href="http://www.imadude.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.imadude.com</a> and enjoy.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08588846299809837035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-46605643578485834602014-03-30T09:19:49.967-04:002014-03-30T09:19:49.967-04:00I don't know who actually made it up, but &quo...I don't know who actually made it up, but "regression monkey" made me chuckle.The Fantasy Coachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12514039751739432843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-59047461492666121062014-03-30T09:09:36.361-04:002014-03-30T09:09:36.361-04:00I think part of the problem with this whole matter...I think part of the problem with this whole matter is that science isn't really meant to be a debate. It's not supposed to be a smug snarkfest, taking place across blogs on the internet either. Not to sound like a jerk, but most of the people in the discussion sound like they don't have a very rigorous education in science, or that they left it behind a long time ago so they could "celebrity minds" who write articles for major online news sites.<br /><br />And when you treat science like something it's not, as the comment above mine points out, you start say stuff that doesn't make sense, or is stridently ignorant, or is just plain wrong. The people who seem to be writing this stuff, or reveling in it, don't seem to have an appreciation for this fact, don't seem to realize that they're dealing with more delicate and thoughtful material than they treat it. Experiments can be wrong, statisticians can outsmart themselves (frequently), the nature of the things being studied can be completely misunderstood, pop science lovers and scientific neophytes don't seem to bring much understanding of that to the discussion. They seem to delight in a few online articles as being their secret weapon to being smarter and more "data driven" than everybody else. But empirical reality isn't a debate between Fox News and MSNBC. And it just feels like everyone would be a little smarter if these enthusiasts realized you don't have scientific literacy, or an appreciation for how the experimental process works, by just reading a lot of scientific news stories over the internet.The Fantasy Coachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12514039751739432843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-71953816905092656332014-03-29T09:46:18.870-04:002014-03-29T09:46:18.870-04:00I'm a bit uncomfortable with a blanket stateme...I'm a bit uncomfortable with a blanket statement such as 'As Paul Krugman pointed out the other day, if you try to pretend you're just looking at data without any theory, you've just ignored your hidden theoretical assumptions.'<br /><br />Science, esp. Physics, has not always been about hypotheses and hypothesis testing. If you go back far enough, you find a contrary sentiment in scientists such as - oh - Newton and Maxwell for example. <br /><br />Newton eschewed hypotheses altogether -- *hypotheses non fingo* ('I feign no hypotheses'). That is, he at least pretended to approach his data empirically and with no theory at all in mind, that wasn't suggested by it. He did allow what we would call today semi-empirical models (motivated curve fitting).<br /><br />Maxwell is maybe the last scientist of stature to oppose, in print 'The Method of Hypothesis' as a novelty and danger for science. Read the last few chapters of his 'Matter and Motion' which is very readable even today. <br /><br />Oh, and the one time he did use the Method of Hypothesis, albeit with many caveats and strictures, he ended up with a classical molecular theory that was wrong, and proven so by early Quantum Mechanics.<br /><br />So, far from 'there's always a theory' -- the two most significant physicists of the last 400 years, who formulated about half of what we know and maybe more, felt differently from you and Krugman about how to approach data.<br /><br />I'm aware I'm overstating my case a bit here -- but the contrary view should be looked at, and the fact that physics, as a paradigm science (whatever you think it's relation to economics might be...) should at least be known to have a controversial methodology dispute, when it comes to hypothesis testing with data -- one that was well known a century ago, and had a name, the Method of Hypothesis, to pigeon hole the discussion. The discussion is not closed, and needs to be revisited in several contexts.Macrobiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147578789638409836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-91473081615979376852014-03-28T16:38:14.218-04:002014-03-28T16:38:14.218-04:00Ben, you ask questions: "among them how to be...Ben, you ask questions: "among them how to be rigorous without being impenetrable"<br /><br />The answer to your biggest question is<br />"Don't be afraid to admit when you don't have anything useful to say".<br /><br />Or, more concisely, if you don't have the data, shut up.<br /><br />Pielke has a bad reputation among his colleagues because he's full of shit. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/19/3416369/538-climate-article/ In his case, he's probably operating in bad faith. Nate should have the sense to shitcan him. His colleagues have ripped him apart quite comprehensively -- with the data which he ignored.<br /><br />The Laskow article -- I believe that Laskow is operating in good faith, but she doesn't know enough to write about the topic she writes about. She needs to learn more biology before she can actually write about the topic.<br /><br />(Her bad article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-evolution-outrace-climate-change/ )<br /><br />If you ask someone who actually knows something about the stuff raised in her article, they'll tell you something like this:<br /><br />Some species will evolve quickly and adapt to climate change. So what? That doesn't help HUMANS. Climate change still sucks for humans. We evolved in a particular climate. We do NOT evolve quickly (long generation time -- upwards of 18 year generations for humans, versus minutes or seconds for bacteria and some algae). <br /><br />Humans depend on a particular set of food chains. Some of the plants and animals in those chains may evolve into new species -- probably ones we can't eat. Others will die off. Either way, we're screwed.<br /><br />If 538 is going into the business of climate change denialism, it needs to be shut down. I thought Nate Silver had better standards than this. I can get him better science writers just by pointing him at ScienceBlogs.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-1664366963122021312014-03-28T11:57:11.956-04:002014-03-28T11:57:11.956-04:00Have to say I found Silver's analysis of 2014 ...Have to say I found Silver's analysis of 2014 Senate races premature and simply his opinion rather than being data driven. He freely admits that handicapping elections this far in advance is more about his "special sauce" and less about poll aggregation. What's a data guy to do when there's no data? Me, I'd just be quiet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-35233175107588610112014-03-28T01:40:41.996-04:002014-03-28T01:40:41.996-04:00This is actually a very good example of what Krugm...This is actually a very good example of what Krugman was saying about the importance of modeling, and implied, or "Accidental", modeling. We have really important basic knowledge about how the human body works and how similar all human bodies are in basic ways -- that's a model. But it comes from a ton of supporting data and evidence that we have going in, or apriori, to our berry sampling -- Ignore that model, and interpret the sample naively, at your own peril.Richard H. Serlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824966626830758801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-13672002252739372302014-03-28T01:15:22.560-04:002014-03-28T01:15:22.560-04:00But the point is, a sample size of 23 is only too ...But the point is, a sample size of 23 is only too small for certain kinds of statistical analysis and tests and data, with certain kinds, or lack of, apriori information.<br /><br />A crucial and little understood point is that it really depends on the situation and on your apriori or supporting information.<br /><br />If two people are walking through the woods and one eats a berry and immediately keels over, should the other say, hey, it's only a sample of one, and since I haven't eaten since lunch,...<br /><br />Obviously not; given the aprori information that most people have on basic biology, and the similarity of humans in basic bodily behavior, it's extremely likely from just that sample of one that those berries are extremely dangerous.<br /><br />And in fact, this isn't just my conjecture. I've studied some really advanced PhD statistics, and many times they've talked about medical samples less than 10, but because the results of those 5 or 6 were so extreme, it was very conclusive evidence that something big was going on.<br /><br />Suppose, for example, you sample a roulette wheel, and 23 times in a row it lands on 15 black. Would you say, it's only a sample of 23, that doesn't tell you anything? If the sample was even just three, all 15 black, that would be very strong evidence that the wheel was highly biased.Richard H. Serlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824966626830758801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72831197380800609332014-03-27T21:09:20.334-04:002014-03-27T21:09:20.334-04:00I think you meant to post that on Breitbart.com. ...I think you meant to post that on Breitbart.com. Bill Ellisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-90813585760989243702014-03-27T19:47:24.705-04:002014-03-27T19:47:24.705-04:00Silver didn't "change" his Florida p...Silver didn't "change" his Florida prediction. He called it a toss up. The number generated by his model changed from ever so slightly favoring Romney to ever so slightly favoring Obama, but that was meaningless. The bottom line was that 49 states were somewhere between set in stone and reasonably certain, but one was anyone's guessPSThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10561802096088284074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-19018164225770003182014-03-27T16:33:39.291-04:002014-03-27T16:33:39.291-04:00Haha good point, good point...Haha good point, good point...Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-78566848254518807842014-03-27T16:13:49.226-04:002014-03-27T16:13:49.226-04:00Good point. And why Noah would still be a fan afte...Good point. And why Noah would still be a fan after this, I don't know. He didn't even discuss Pielke's known climate "skeptic" history.<br /><br />Noah must be drinking the Nate Silver marketing Kool-Aid.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-61089549182138335792014-03-27T15:50:14.280-04:002014-03-27T15:50:14.280-04:00<> Since a sample size of 23 is too small to...<> Since a sample size of 23 is too small to be meaningful, I wish Noahpinion and Readers of Noahpinion could at least draw their inference from an analysis of at least 23 articles on Nate Silver site before passing a judgment ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-91964148368253136062014-03-27T14:29:30.204-04:002014-03-27T14:29:30.204-04:00Somewhere, Jill Abrammson is smiling. Somewhere, Jill Abrammson is smiling. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-26497652315723880882014-03-27T14:12:09.030-04:002014-03-27T14:12:09.030-04:00Largely agree. I hope the early issues will be iro...Largely agree. I hope the early issues will be ironed out. No, this isn't about anger because of his mid-term prediction. That, actually, was one of the better articles they've done so far. What made it stand out for me was the article reporting on the BLS study showing the difference between earning for college graduates and high school graduates. Great study, and the reporter was simply relegated to saying "Hey, great study"! I'm willing to be patient and give the site time to find it's niche, though. There's been a sprinkling of good material, hopefully it will increase (probably) as time passes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157787456191327402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-3846000264786404812014-03-27T13:44:03.630-04:002014-03-27T13:44:03.630-04:00Nothing screams "credibility" like an an...Nothing screams "credibility" like an anonymous post sourced in hearsay.Joel Rosenbaumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-89945005616636920522014-03-27T12:40:00.113-04:002014-03-27T12:40:00.113-04:00no no no
everyone knew, or should have known, that...no no no<br />everyone knew, or should have known, that of the 50 states, only about 10 were in play<br />was there any doubt whatsoever of how Texas, Georgia and Alabama, or NY MA or CA would vote ?<br />of course not<br />So to accurately understand the probabilitys and statistics, you would have to go back and look at what states were in play<br />one time honored method - perhpas skewed this cycle by romney - is where the candidates were going and where they were buying ad time; I've lived in MA for 20 years, and we get very, very, very little in the way of advertising - I mean, who is gonna waste money on MA ? we are gonna go Dem<br />That was one of the odd things about 2008; Obama carried normally safe GOP states (expanding the map as they saySoccer Dadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10745967553131454562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-77881922507982313982014-03-27T12:39:19.226-04:002014-03-27T12:39:19.226-04:00Today Silver publishes a list of favorable, unfavo...Today Silver publishes a list of favorable, unfavorable, and neutral Krugman posts about fivethirtyeight and/or Nate Silver, and since the motivation would come from how negative Krugman has become some Silver left NYT, I read all of the negative ones that themselves linked to Silver's posts Krugman was taking issue with, and one I'd read on fivethirtyeight I read and was puzzled by.<br /><br />I found Silver's writing on economics jaw-droppingly uninformed, as though he'd taken the same Econ 101 class I took thirty years ago, didn't read the whole thing, and hasn't tried to follow the discussions since. <br /><br />I'm not an economist either, but the numbers he looks at without context, and the models he uses to explain them were really freshman explanations of tax policy that the Wall Street Journal editorial page likes to recite. (He mentions the Laffer curve as not really being applicable to the level of taxation in one.)<br /><br />It just had me stunned to see what a statistician who is not an economist doesn't think it's relevant, what with numbers hee compares, what he ignores or more likely doesn't know to consider that are also numbers. Just painful. The criticisms are really accurate and deeply unfortunate. <br /><br />The articles I've read on the new site don't invite me back as a reader of journalism and current events, or interesting ways to think. They were vacuous and uninformative, universally less than half-baked. <br /><br />I'll watch his polling analysis closely. bluespapahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10943537574000901373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-62035664234676221952014-03-27T12:37:04.954-04:002014-03-27T12:37:04.954-04:00Quote
take this post about how climate change is ...Quote<br /> take this post about how climate change is not increasing the cost of natural disasters. The blogger, Roger Pielke, <br />Unquote<br /><br />Dr Pielke says that disasters are not increasing, and gives a link to the IPCC as a source.<br />IF you follow the link, you wind up not at the data supporting the claim, but at the IPCC homepage - it is up to the reader to try and find on the huge IPCC cite the relevant data<br />Lazy and sloppy; every discipline has technical basics; for wonkblogging, one of the basics is precise links<br /><br />Almost as bad as economists who give "www.bls.gov" as a sourceSoccer Dadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10745967553131454562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-81928448167662815352014-03-27T11:29:15.919-04:002014-03-27T11:29:15.919-04:00Want some more "data driven" evidence on...Want some more "data driven" evidence on the coming costs of climate change? The insurance industry, which is raising premiums and limiting coverage for situations where they think climate change will have an impact. Here's a recent Times story, maybe Nate's blogger could look around a little more before posting such a trivial piece:<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/business/insurers-stray-from-the-conservative-line-on-climate-change.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-55998555123247263682014-03-27T11:29:05.519-04:002014-03-27T11:29:05.519-04:00From your link, “While we can already detect trend...From your link, <i>“While we can already detect trends in data for global hurricane activity considering the whole life of each storm, we estimate that it would take at least another 50 years to detect any long-term trend in U.S. landfalling hurricane statistics, so powerful is the role of chance in these numbers.”</i><br /><br />Thanks for the link and let me recommend it to others as pretty good writing, with no problems to me (just a concerned citizen with some analytical chops, non-expert).Walt Frenchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00873789914522579055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-50904118474009541822014-03-27T11:18:03.903-04:002014-03-27T11:18:03.903-04:00No. Frankly I'm neither very interested nor ab...No. Frankly I'm neither very interested nor able to evaluate / second-guess any conclusions in baseball. I enjoyed Moneyball the book and the movie but that's about as far as such things go for me.<br /><br />Media-based analysis, whether data- or religion-based, needs a way to hook readers. A delicate balance of being provocative for eyeballs, versus wrong for tune-outs.Walt Frenchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00873789914522579055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-32137960151688373682014-03-27T11:12:40.510-04:002014-03-27T11:12:40.510-04:00I'm not seeing how to reply directly to AC/5:3...I'm not seeing how to reply directly to AC/5:32 but your post pretty well breaks Occam's Razor, plus a whole host of other tenets of good analysis.<br /><br />Your, and other spinmeisters' attempts to position this as sauce for the Liberal ganders is more of the same hijacking of the national dialogue that Silver's analysis skewered by unskewing the tub-thumping fundraisers in 2012.<br /><br />My complaint here is with the weak tea in what I've seen lately. E.g., the “climate change” piece is a complete distraction from the overall story. It sets up a strawman argument that a trend to more serious storm damage should have been evident based on data back to the '80s if we're indeed going to be increasing average temperatures in the next decades and centuries. <br /><br />And even with such a ridiculous premise to knock down, it doesn't: the trend line may have a zero slope, but the confidence range around the slope includes some truly scary scenarios. (Not that careful scientists would attempt to extrapolate so wildly from an unrepresentative base.)<br /><br />That's not serious data-analysis and predictions; it simply discredits the writer in the minds of people who have ever done similar analysis in any field and may well confuse the general public about the extent/nature of the climate debate. I have NO idea why 538 dragged such a red herring across the trail of understanding our world.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the question of how many midterm seats the R's will capture is what it is, and Politico can engage in the mud-slinging about whose ox is being gored. The concern about the quality of FiveThirtyEight.Com is about how egregiously it's violating its own promise to readers.Walt Frenchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00873789914522579055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-79383336665350886832014-03-27T10:50:40.484-04:002014-03-27T10:50:40.484-04:00"Did Nate become "uncool " among pr..."Did Nate become "uncool " among progressive bloggers after or before he predicted a Democratic debacle in the approaching Senate elections?"<br /><br />I think that most Democrats with any awareness of how midterm elections tend to work understand that that's a real possibility, and understood that long before Silver said anything about it.<br /><br />- Guggenheim SwirlyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com