(above where i said "perfect" i meant perfectly calibrated)
-
Show this thread
-
"It's astounding how few experts' confidence intervals included the correct estimate " is just wrong. some of the time it's perfectly reasonable for ALL expert confidence intervals to fail to include the correct estimate
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
May be so, but then we’re severely over-provisioned in experts, beyond surge capacity in # of topics needing opinions.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
If-then. Why have experts concerned with prediction if they can’t try to be uncorrelated about it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @othercriteria
Vessel Of Spirit Retweeted Vessel Of Spirit
Vessel Of Spirit added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
If we’re asking experts for their opinion on what the two trailing digits of C*VID deaths are on, say, 2021-05-01, then sure.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @othercriteria
my point is simply that some events are objectively surprising given finite information
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
I think your argument has a reliance on monotonocity or ordering or implications holding across experts’ models.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
i don't know what you mean by that. note i'm not saying this case is exactly like the d100, just that there's an element of d100ness in it
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.