Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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.
He's spent basically the last two months screaming that from every rooftop he could find. Human systems are necessarily complex systems and so we should be extremely cautious about trying to reduce that complexity and pretending that in doing so we understand it.
Isn't that ("terms of surrender") Woods's phrase? It's not in quotes.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
