It's not a way to answer "what actually happened." It's a way to assess the likelihood that something happened. Aggregating probabilistic estimates from experts is a good way for a layperson to understand what those experts believe as a group. https://twitter.com/barry/status/1397884687108952068 …
-
-
But how do we know who the "right experts" are? Anyway, I don't think social media is the right tool for soliciting estimates like this. But the principle is sound.
-
It's not impossible to figure out the group that has the relevant expertise, and maybe even try to find a way to poll them, but they are definitely not represented on social media in any form that resembles what one would need. That's been the key fallacy last year for media.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Do you have a better proposal for helping laypeople aggregate the opinions of expertise? Seems hard to avoid the bias of overweighting by amount of retweets. Maybe just "Don't do it", or "wait for respected journalism to do it"?
-
It takes a ton of journalistic work to help laypeople aggregate the opinions of actual expertise on a topic. Determining who qualifies as an actual expert, then contacting and interviewing that cadre of people, then assembling it into good writing takes time. I vote for "wait."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
True, but shifts might indicate a retreat because of untenability
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.