This. Faux precision in not scientific, it's scientism, just like that Trump "2%" odds he had. He meant "unlikely".https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/757982368779075588 …
-
-
People forget: presidential races are rare events. We don't have that much past data. It's not like state elections. Can't be that precise.
-
Nate has spilled tons of ink, devoted multiple book chapters agreeing with you. He hates when people run w/his "predictions."
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
.
@nateschenkkan Yes. They're just numbers from simulations, I gather. Fine. Except that's a baseball bat, not some scalpel precise to digit.
End of conversation
-
-
-
I don't have the expertise to judge these things, but a lot of the methodology and caveats are on the
@FiveThirtyEight website -
.@zepfeldnyc
@FiveThirtyEight Yeah, but the reporting nor presentation doesn't reflect it. They could do it. Show blurry ranges—not numbers. - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The methodology, including the issues of range, not all that hard to find. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/ …
-
.
@padams29 Yes, people should look at methodology and@fivethirtyeight should stop reporting too precise digits; better presentation needed. - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I always tell my students, "Never let your precision exceed your accuracy."
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.