Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
And he openly compares himself to the historical-mathematicians from the Foundation books. What I am saying is - I *know* the data from some of these periods and, if you'll pardon the analogy - the polls are garbage.
And with evidence that is quite frankly so difficult, so contradictory, and so frequently weak or non-existent, his entire method strikes me as deeply uncertain. So where is that uncertainty? Where is the epistemic humility in his approach?
The answer is literally nowhere. Instead he proudly offers "terms of surrender" to the field of history. He is *supremely* confident in his presentation. There's a word for someone who presents uncertain things as confident facts: charlatan.
Since you mention 538, Nate Silver in his book stresses that reductionist methods of predicting outcomes e.g. in the stock market or elections are almost invariably wrong and invite serious skepticism if not outright rejection. So he'd probably agree with you here.
Interesting points, I agree that Harari and metahistorical approaches are just-so. Turchin's methodology has been in development for some time, with an discourse community (Cliodynamics) so it's not "just him." And it has foresight value. As a foresighter I find it quite useful.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
