You keep confusing causation with credibility.
-
-
I'm sorry Mr. Adams, I don't understand your comment well enough to respond. Would you elaborate?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @XBONE_PR @ScottAdamsSays and
random models predict correctly by getting lucky. Magic 8-balls can do that too.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @flyingfoxxx @ScottAdamsSays and
If a random model passes backtesting, and makes accurate predictions, why is it wrong?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @XBONE_PR @ScottAdamsSays and
it's a matter of precision. Could be kinda sorta right most of the time. I call that a guess.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @flyingfoxxx @XBONE_PR and
most likely a random guess will ultimately fail. It represents luck, not understanding.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @flyingfoxxx @XBONE_PR and
Is that why economic models work so well? Scott says in his post, get down to one or two models that actually make pred and you got me hello
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SamMobasher @flyingfoxxx and
Models predict the movement of planets in the solar system. And done.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @XBONE_PR @SamMobasher and
That's why there is only one planetary model. See the pattern?
3 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @SamMobasher and
We arrived at the "one" you speak of, only after disqualifying the others.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
By direct observation. Something we can someday do with climate science, not yet.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @SamMobasher and
What currently prevents us from observing the climate?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @XBONE_PR @ScottAdamsSays and
because these models predict 30 years out so you have to wait that long to see
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
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.