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 …
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
Modeling is fine, but it's not like random sampling (which we can't even do well anymore) where you have precise error. And this early? Meh.
2 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
Wouldn't mind it with some explanation, presented as a range, no digit after the period FFS, with some info on how model performed in past.
6 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I don't have the expertise to judge these things, but a lot of the methodology and caveats are on the
@FiveThirtyEight website1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GarrettMAA
.@zepfeldnyc
@FiveThirtyEight Yeah, but the reporting nor presentation doesn't reflect it. They could do it. Show blurry ranges—not numbers.4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @FiveThirtyEight
Fair enough. BTW, enjoyed your contributions on the recent
@freakonomics podcast.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
thank you!
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.