• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The New York Times Uses Science to Predict a Trump Election Loss in 2016

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Flashback to The New York Times, the experts in making decisions based on scientific facts. The night before the election The Times said it was 67% likely Hillary would win Florida, 89% likely Hillary would win Pennsylvania, 93% likely Hillary would win Wisconsin, and 94% likely Hillary would win Michigan.
Click to expand...

Science. Wrong half the time these days, and not just in statistics.

If you're not skeptical you're just being stupid.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Well as Nate Silver points out so called journalists are not skeptical, which goes far towards explaining their profound ignorance.
Click to expand...

And Nate Silver was everybit as wrong as every other pollster out there seeing how at the beginning of election day he had Hillary's chance to win at 70%.
 
poweRob said:
And Nate Silver was everybit as wrong as every other pollster out there seeing how at the beginning of election day he had Hillary's chance to win at 70%.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the lowest of anybody.

Nate Sliver has been wrong too much lately, but he clearly seeks truth, he clearly is capable of learning, and he is not a liar....so he comes in "Head Of Class" of the Elites, cause very very few can manage all that.
 
Is this hit-and-run anti-intellectualism supposed to make us skeptical of science?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Pretty much the lowest of anybody.

Nate Sliver has been wrong too much lately, but he clearly seeks truth, he clearly is capable of learning, and he is not a liar....so he comes in "Head Of Class" of the Elites, cause very very few can manage all that.
Click to expand...

Nate had tons of credibility a couple elections ago. He shot his wad on this last one and is scrambling for relevancy again. Maybe he will get there but as of now, his rep is so wounded its hard to take him seriously at this point.
 
ecofarm said:
Is this hit-and-run anti-intellectualism supposed to make us skeptical of science?
Click to expand...

This is the OP's 2nd anti-NYT slam thread this weekend. Both on the front page here of General Politics section. I expect him to spam more. He's on a mission.
 
poweRob said:
This is the OP's 2nd anti-NYT slam thread today. He's on a mission.
Click to expand...

Spamming youtube and blogs is serious work. Gots ta edumacate thems people about science!
 
ecofarm said:
Spamming youtube and blogs is serious work. Gots ta edumacate thems people about science!
Click to expand...

So far the trumpstani right is teaching us to not believe any sources other than trumps tweets and to disbelieve science.

Working hard to dumb down america that's for sure.
 
poweRob said:
So far the trumpstani right is teaching us to not believe any sources other than trumps tweets and to disbelieve science.

Working hard to dumb down america that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Science and higher education being witchcraft has been around long before Trump. Anti-intellectualism has always been. You know, education is indoctrination.
 
Totally off-topic: we philosophers have been telling scientists for quite a long time they should be listening to us a little more, because the day would come when all those philosophical doubts about the reliability of science we've been raising would emerge to have some practical effects. There are some glimmers that they're listening a little more over the last few years. I had a (rather famous) neuroscientist stop by my office a few years ago and ask me to explain the mind-body problem to him. I obliged, and gave what I think was one of the better impromptu explanations I've ever given. He had considerable difficulty understanding the notion of mental properties, or why someone might think it significant that, when you think of an elephant, your head doesn't suddenly weigh two tons. When I finished, he actually snorted and said something like "no wonder no one listens to you morons," and walked out of my office without so much as a thank-you. His book, of course, made no mention of the conversation or the mind-body problem itself.

Science gained a great deal of intellectual authority and respect in the public view in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when it made headway against diseases that had been the scourges of human beings for millennia. This resulted in an irrational exuberance that is only just beginning to die down a bit. Science journalists are still infected by it, however. At least once a week I read an article in some science journal, or even some general news periodical or website, where some journalist or other writes a story with headlines like "Scientists prove that God is a part of the brain," or "Computer program learns to be aggressive," "Biologists create new life from common chemicals." Inevitably, when I compare the claims made in these articles to the claims made in the journal papers on which they are based, the information given to the general public is blown way out of proportion.

For example, the "Biologists create new life from common chemicals" was a hoot. The article (I think it appeared in Wired magazine...can't be sure, it was a few years ago) claimed basically what the headline says. The impression given to the public was that scientists had mixed up some chemicals in a test-tube and out popped a living cell. Atheists were shouting this experiment from rooftops--the final nail in the coffin for creationism! they all basically said. I went to look at the actual article. Turns out, what the scientists did was take RNA from one kind of bacteria and insert it into another bacteria of a related species. They then found that the second bacteria began producing proteins common only to the first bacteria. At no time were there any dead chemicals brought to life. Anyway, you can't make this stuff up.

So yeah, to get back to the topic, science journalists are downright dopey in my view.
 
poweRob said:
Look at you on a mission to discredit the NYT. How many more anti-NYT threads you going to make today?
Click to expand...

They question Trump's infinite wisdom. They must be destroyed.
 
poweRob said:
So far the trumpstani right is teaching us to not believe any sources other than trumps tweets and to disbelieve science.

Working hard to dumb down america that's for sure.
Click to expand...

We're not even supposed to pay attention to his tweets. Only the official statements made by Spicer.
 
LowDown said:
Science. Wrong half the time these days, and not just in statistics.

If you're not skeptical you're just being stupid.
Click to expand...



Damn.

LowDown killed science, killed it until it died.







I mean, do you really not understand that it's only because of constant ongoing research that defects in research are discovered? Do you not understand that there are other layers of people trying to figure out if areas of research are on the wrong foot, specifically it benefits them when they break the news?

I guarantee you that 99.99% of the objects within 10 feet of you - right NOW - are because "science."
 
poweRob said:
And Nate Silver was everybit as wrong as every other pollster out there seeing how at the beginning of election day he had Hillary's chance to win at 70%.
Click to expand...

He did have hillary as winning but he had her at the lowest odds of any reputable forcaster, he was even attacked by other forcasters because he gave trump a 30% chance while others gave trump a 1% chance. Nate played it safe based off of his past experience with the herd mentality, which is where pollsters all manipulate results of whoever they think is the head pollster rather than what poll results actually were.

He also predicted a high chance in summer 2016 trump could sweep the rust belt, as did michael moore, since even then the writing was on the wall that the democrat party was dissing the rust belt. Nate was actually the closest of the reputable forcasters, and he will probably be the only one trusted next election of the existing pool, while others who had hillary at 95-99% chance winning will probably never be trusted for the forseeable future.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I had a (rather famous) neuroscientist stop by my office a few years ago and ask me to explain the mind-body problem to him.
Click to expand...

I thought to myself: well, a famous neuroscientist wants him to explain something. That never happened to me.

When I finished, he actually snorted and said something like "no wonder no one listens to you morons," and walked out of my office without so much as a thank-you.
Click to expand...
:lamo


Genetic modification does create a new organism but not a new life as in abiogenesis. One of many funny misunderstandings by those not inclined to read.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Totally off-topic: we philosophers have been telling scientists for quite a long time they should be listening to us a little more, because the day would come when all those philosophical doubts about the reliability of science we've been raising would emerge to have some practical effects. There are some glimmers that they're listening a little more over the last few years. I had a (rather famous) neuroscientist stop by my office a few years ago and ask me to explain the mind-body problem to him. I obliged, and gave what I think was one of the better impromptu explanations I've ever given. He had considerable difficulty understanding the notion of mental properties, or why someone might think it significant that, when you think of an elephant, your head doesn't suddenly weigh two tons. When I finished, he actually snorted and said something like "no wonder no one listens to you morons," and walked out of my office without so much as a thank-you. His book, of course, made no mention of the conversation or the mind-body problem itself.

Science gained a great deal of intellectual authority and respect in the public view in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when it made headway against diseases that had been the scourges of human beings for millennia. This resulted in an irrational exuberance that is only just beginning to die down a bit. Science journalists are still infected by it, however. At least once a week I read an article in some science journal, or even some general news periodical or website, where some journalist or other writes a story with headlines like "Scientists prove that God is a part of the brain," or "Computer program learns to be aggressive," "Biologists create new life from common chemicals." Inevitably, when I compare the claims made in these articles to the claims made in the journal papers on which they are based, the information given to the general public is blown way out of proportion.

For example, the "Biologists create new life from common chemicals" was a hoot. The article (I think it appeared in Wired magazine...can't be sure, it was a few years ago) claimed basically what the headline says. The impression given to the public was that scientists had mixed up some chemicals in a test-tube and out popped a living cell. Atheists were shouting this experiment from rooftops--the final nail in the coffin for creationism! they all basically said. I went to look at the actual article. Turns out, what the scientists did was take RNA from one kind of bacteria and insert it into another bacteria of a related species. They then found that the second bacteria began producing proteins common only to the first bacteria. At no time were there any dead chemicals brought to life. Anyway, you can't make this stuff up.

So yeah, to get back to the topic, science journalists are downright dopey in my view.
Click to expand...

To be clear, the article I cite was a survey of scientists regarding how much of the stuff published in peer reviewed journals is true and can be replicated. Only about 50% of it was the general consensus. This is an effing disaster. You really do have to be careful about what you regard as authoritative in the peer reviewed literature.

Elsewhere I've posted on why this is happening. In short, the way that science is funded rewards mountebanks who publish fast and loose.

Consider, for example, stroke research. Over a hundred agents went to clinical trials at a cost of billions, and none of them were any good. They went back and looked at why this was happening and they found dozens of ways that bias had been unknowingly introduced into the pre-clinical studies. When the experiments were done the right way, with appropriate controls and blinding, they were negative.

I really wasn't trying to take a swipe at the NY Times, but I do wonder how long Silver would have beeen working for them if he had predicted a Trump victory.
 
ecofarm said:
I thought to myself: well, a famous neuroscientist wants him to explain something. That never happened to me.
Click to expand...

At the time, it was actually quite a shock. Now, it's becoming more common. The fact that science isn't quite all that and a bag of chips is starting to sink in with scientists generally, and it's become more common for at least some science departments to consult with philosophy departments. Actually, it's not uncommon now for me and other members of my department to get respectful visits from faculty and grad students in the neurolabs/programs here, and for us to have interesting discussions. And of course, vice-versa. I enjoy keeping up with the latest research on the brain and in the cognitive sciences, and often talk to folks from those departments.

ecofarm said:
Genetic modification does create a new organism but not a new life as in abiogenesis. One of many funny misunderstandings by those not inclined to read.
Click to expand...

The irony was that the people who are supposed to be well-read in science (i.e. science journalists) so often misunderstand science it's gone way beyond ridiculous, in my view. The general public has a very skewed understanding of what science is, and what it tells us, in a lot of areas.

The reason I harp on this whenever it comes up is that science (or rather, its misrepresentation) becomes part of the cultural material that informs how society tends to behave, and also how individuals within society behave. Obviously, if we base our behavior on false beliefs, that becomes a real problem. I can go on, but I don't want to derail the thread.
 
LowDown said:
To be clear, the article I cite was a survey of scientists regarding how much of the stuff published in peer reviewed journals is true and can be replicated. Only about 50% of it was the general consensus. This is an effing disaster.
Click to expand...

To be clear on my end, my point is that philosophers have been more or less predicting this effing disaster for about 7 decades. See below.

LowDown said:
Elsewhere I've posted on why this is happening. In short, the way that science is funded rewards mountebanks who publish fast and loose.
Click to expand...

Well, that's true, but I think we can expand on it a little bit. The main problem as I see it is twofold:

1. Theories are always underdetermined by the data. Scientists go forward with theories (which are basically the result of doing philosophy) on data that can never completely support them.

2. The generally "bad" aspects of human nature that have been uncovered by psychology and sociology have as much effect within science as they do anywhere else. Scientists can be as closed-minded and petty as anyone (thus the reason for my little anecdote), and thereby undermine the validity of science.

These are some of the reasons philosophers have critiqued science, and until recently, no one in science has been listening (and to continue the "to be clear" vibe: other philosophers have still other bases for critiquing science--these are just the two that I agree with most). To this, I would add a third with which almost no one agrees: The universe is an illusion, and it is not actually consistent--merely sufficiently consistent to fool us most of the time. But if that is correct, it explains why science gets more and more wobbly results the more narrow research becomes.

LowDown said:
Consider, for example, stroke research. Over a hundred agents went to clinical trials at a cost of billions, and none of them were any good. They went back and looked at why this was happening and they found dozens of ways that bias had been unknowingly introduced into the pre-clinical studies. When the experiments were done the right way, with appropriate controls and blinding, they were negative.
Click to expand...

Now here's the interesting bit--even though there were observations about how bias had crept in, and the new results were negative, those facts don't actually tell us why the original results were skewed. It provides a basis for a good guess. But the apparent explanation for the two sets of data could be false--could just be coincidence.

I really wasn't trying to take a swipe at the NY Times, but I do wonder how long Silver would have beeen working for them if he had predicted a Trump victory.[/quote]

As I recall, Silver did lower his projections a few days before the election, to roughly 2/3 chance for Hillary. He took a lot of crap for it. What actually transpired was certainly not inconsistent with his final prediction.

Anyway, I certainly did mean to take a swipe at science journalists.
 
ashurbanipal said:
At the time, it was actually quite a shock. Now, it's becoming more common. The fact that science isn't quite all that and a bag of chips is starting to sink in with scientists generally, and it's become more common for at least some science departments to consult with philosophy departments. Actually, it's not uncommon now for me and other members of my department to get respectful visits from faculty and grad students in the neurolabs/programs here, and for us to have interesting discussions. And of course, vice-versa. I enjoy keeping up with the latest research on the brain and in the cognitive sciences, and often talk to folks from those departments.



The irony was that the people who are supposed to be well-read in science (i.e. science journalists) so often misunderstand science it's gone way beyond ridiculous, in my view. The general public has a very skewed understanding of what science is, and what it tells us, in a lot of areas.

The reason I harp on this whenever it comes up is that science (or rather, its misrepresentation) becomes part of the cultural material that informs how society tends to behave, and also how individuals within society behave. Obviously, if we base our behavior on false beliefs, that becomes a real problem. I can go on, but I don't want to derail the thread.
Click to expand...

Well, anyone buying "Abiogenesis proven in lab, replicable experiment successful" is a bit naive. That would be the main news everywhere for days. No grad student, let alone professor or "science journalist" would take the claim at face value.

If you want to see some real science twisting for (political) agenda, go see the Environmental subforum here. It's lambasted with blogs misinterpreting and jumping to absurd conclusions. It's perhaps the greatest conglomeration of anti-intellectual garbage I've seen.
 
ecofarm said:
Well, anyone buying "Abiogenesis proven in lab, replicable experiment successful" is a bit naive. That would be the main news everywhere for days. No grad student, let alone professor or "science journalist" would take the claim at face value.
Click to expand...

And yet, with respect to the science journalists, quite a few of them did. And the militant atheists bought it hook, line, and sinker. I was posting on the old Internet Infidels boards at that time. It was quite instructive watching them go at it. I posted an explanation of what the research actually said, and linked to the abstract of the article (which was behind a paywall--I had access through my university library). The really odd thing was that here were a bunch of folks priding themselves on their reason and their willingness to follow science wherever it leads, to accept the evidence fearlessly and without bias. But despite my posts with the actual explanation, they went on hooting and hollering (or the online equivalent) for days. A few commented on my posts, basically ignoring the content, accusing me of standing up for creationism (even though I had said nothing about creationism), being an ignorant git, etc.

I was ABD at that time, gearing up for my defense. It took (IIRC) two weeks for one of the most frequent posters there to read the research and realize that I was correct. But the claim that living cells had been created from chemicals became a kind of meme that went without any checking for the remaining six months or so that I was on those boards. It was one of the most stunning cases of confirmation bias I've ever seen, from people who are quick to pull out the "confirmation bias" card on everyone else.

ecofarm said:
If you want to see some real science twisting for (political) agenda, go see the Environmental subforum here. It's lambasted with blogs misinterpreting and jumping to absurd conclusions. It's perhaps the greatest conglomeration of anti-intellectual garbage I've seen.
Click to expand...

Yep. I used to post there, got into a long thread with a guy who is no longer around (don't recall his name). I don't post there any longer, for the most part.
 
ashurbanipal said:
And yet, with respect to the science journalists, quite a few of them did. And the militant atheists bought it hook, line, and sinker. I was posting on the old Internet Infidels boards at that time.
Click to expand...

Your sample size is insufficient to label a group. I'm yet to encounter anyone, except perhaps here (wasn't there a thread?), who would confuse genetic modification and abiogenesis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom