Do you see the irrationality in your question? No scientist approves of fudging. All scientists approve of adjusting data from lower quality to higher.
-
-
Are we talking precision verses accuracy?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Read what he said again. He placed a time dimension on the quality of data. Any experiment must have consistency or it’s worthless.
-
scott keeps unblocking me to reply to my tweets and then reblocking me so I cant respond directly Time has a way of revealing people...
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You're going to have to try hard to defend the advantages of bad data over good data. Tough sell.
End of conversation
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The situation we are discussing is one in which you already have both the bad data and the good data. But for some reason people prefer the bad.
- Show replies
-
-
-
You two disagree on what are bad and good datas. IMO it’s circumstancial and we should not accept absolute premises on this. Now I haven’t dived on the exchange and I am not sure both side are hellbend on making data treatement an absolute validator/unvalidator.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He's saying that trying to "improve" the quality of data after the fact **constitutes** fudging. You're making it sound like there are two buckets, one w good data another w bad, and ppl should just go w the good bucket. That's wrong.
-
Better to stick with bad data?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.