Economist polls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Yeah, economics is not a real science because it's too similar to other fields that are assumed off the bat to not be scientific. And if I a priori define all countries whose name start with S as crapholes, then we can safely conclude that Sweden is a craphole simply by merit of being a country that begins with an S.

---

What I'm trying to say is that you epically failed to interpret GGT's post, not that GGT was correct in her characterisation or her reasoning. I am, however, fairly sure her characterisation of those other disciplines as being "soft sciences" (which is not the same as "not real science") is one that many/most scientists and philosophers of science would consider--at first glance--to be relatively fair and accurate. Good luck trying to find remotely similar support for--or appreciation of--your retarded counter-example. That's not to say that consensus guarantees truth, of course, but it may help evaluate whether or not your counter-example is retarded (98% of hard scientists and philosophers of science would say that it is). In the future, when someone points out one of your epic failures to read and interpret a post (and it will happen many many times) feel free to just say "thanks, sorry, my bad" instead of thinking that you're being encouraged to spout more of the same stupid.

http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Diamond%201987.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

What I'm trying to say is that you epically failed to interpret GGT's post, not that GGT was correct in her characterisation or her reasoning. I am, however, fairly sure her characterisation of those other disciplines as being "soft sciences" (which is not the same as "not real science") is one that many/most scientists and philosophers of science would consider--at first glance--to be relatively fair and accurate. Good luck trying to find remotely similar support for--or appreciation of--your retarded counter-example. That's not to say that consensus guarantees truth, of course, but it may help evaluate whether or not your counter-example is retarded (98% of hard scientists and philosophers of science would say that it is). In the future, when someone points out one of your epic failures to read and interpret a post (and it will happen many many times) feel free to just say "thanks, sorry, my bad" instead of thinking that you're being encouraged to spout more of the same stupid.

---

It certainly doesn't help her case that she cited philosophy.

My problem is not the fact that economics is similar to those fields (because it is), but rather the claim that using information from other fields makes you as weak as those fields. Just because field x has weak standards doesn't mean that field y can't borrow some insights from field x but apply a stronger set of standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

It certainly doesn't help her case that she cited philosophy.

My problem is not the fact that economics is similar to those fields (because it is), but rather the claim that using information from other fields makes you as weak as those fields. Just because field x has weak standards doesn't mean that field y can't borrow some insights from field x but apply a stronger set of standards.

---

You won't get any disagreement from me there :o I would like to point out that, although the term "soft science" is often used as a pejorative, shoddiness or "weak standards" aren't necessarily the characteristics that make a discipline a soft science (see article for a more eloquent author's take on the differences).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

You won't get any disagreement from me there :o I would like to point out that, although the term "soft science" is often used as a pejorative, shoddiness or "weak standards" aren't necessarily the characteristics that make a discipline a soft science (see article for a more eloquent author's take on the differences).

---

I don't have a problem with the term soft science. My problem was with GGT's guilt by association.

Quote:

---

Yeah, economics is not a real science because it's too similar to other fields that are assumed off the bat to not be scientific. And if I a priori define all countries whose name start with S as crapholes, then we can safely conclude that Sweden is a craphole simply by merit of being a country that begins with an S.

---

Not what anyone's saying. I accept almost all the results of psychology, sociologys, and economics. I would not accept the premise of your example.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...nd.single.html :o

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10...-vs-gut/191001

Taking odds on which of the two methods of prediction the GGTs of the world prefer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'll tell you once you tell me the difference between physics and engineering, or biology and epidemiology.
A vast majority of economists do micro.

---

I said there are different types of economists, depending on their sub-specialty and education, and how they apply "economics" in real life. It's not just divided into macro or micro, but often both, and incorporates other soft sciences like Behavior/Psychology. An analogy in medicine would be an MD who can practice medicine right out of med school, or the PhD MD who practices Psychiatry, but neither would be doing open heart surgery.

I also said economists incorporate hard sciences (like math, statistics) in their field, but that doesn't make Economic Science a hard science. That is all. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...nd.single.html :o

---

tl;dr - summary?

Democrats use advanced statistics and theories from the social sciences to come up with their models for turning out the vote and persuading the persuadable, while Republicans use techniques that are several decades old and rely on "common wisdom". Needless to say, the Democratic efforts are far more successful (and quite possibly cheaper). Oddly enough, the NY Times was impressed by the "advanced methods" of the GOP (which shows you how knowledgeable journalists are).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...lver-backlash/

There was a similar fight in poli sci about 40 years ago, and the traditionalists (those who rely on "intuition", "common wisdom", "gut feelings", and "history") got trounced and now make up a tiny minority of the field. Funny how people still refuse to believe that human behavior is quantifiable and at least somewhat predictable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Democrats use advanced statistics and theories from the social sciences to come up with their models for turning out the vote and persuading the persuadable, while Republicans use techniques that are several decades old and rely on "common wisdom". Needless to say, the Democratic efforts are far more successful (and quite possibly cheaper).

---

It is a plausible perspective and narrative. It is not necessarily accurate or true thereby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

It is a plausible perspective and narrative. It is not necessarily accurate or true thereby.

---

The Democrats have been nice enough to measure the effects of their efforts. We have no reliable way of knowing whether the Republican efforts have any effect. The very fact that the latter have done little to answer this question is not a good sign. We do know that the GOP is doing things that have been proven not to work by the Democrats...

But maybe they work on [almost-]Republicans because Republicans are weird and dumb :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Funny how people still refuse to believe that human behavior is quantifiable and at least somewhat predictable.

---

Key word being "somewhat". They're trying to predict US voter behavior in an increasingly volatile and rapidly changing world. Those margin of errors try to include unexpected events, but that's nearly impossible. Consulates get torched, attempted terrorist acts thwarted, hurricanes flood subways, 8 million without electricity, etc.

Undecided or swing voters may see "The role of Government" and federal spending in a different light, on the heels of any massive event or disaster.

Except no one's claiming the ability to predict things perfectly. I don't know about you, but I'd rather know something with 80% certainty than to not know it at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Except no one's claiming the ability to predict things perfectly. I don't know about you, but I'd rather know something with 80% certainty than to not know it at all.

---

Right, I'm just saying that expectations of all these polls, models, data, and predictive powers should be put in perspective. As you say, some 'conventional wisdom' can be false because it's based on outdated premise. iirc, you were wrong about the youth vote in 2008, claiming that students aren't likely voters, and dismissed Ron Paul's growing influence in the GOP. ;)

I'm 99.99% certain that pollsters and demographers will continue to do evermore polls/surveys, analysts will continue to make their predictions, media will treat them as fact or spin them as political, and campaigns will spend millions of dollars for the data-mining and adverts. I'm 100% skeptical that means better candidates, more choices for voters, or a well-informed electorate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Key word being "somewhat". They're trying to predict US voter behavior in an increasingly volatile and rapidly changing world. Those margin of errors try to include unexpected events, but that's nearly impossible. Consulates get torched, attempted terrorist acts thwarted, hurricanes flood subways, 8 million without electricity, etc.

Undecided or swing voters may see "The role of Government" and federal spending in a different light, on the heels of any massive event or disaster.

---

True, but it may be easier to say, with relatively great certainty, whether or not these things are likely to be enough to change the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Right, I'm just saying that expectations of all these polls, models, data, and predictive powers should be put in perspective. As you say, some 'conventional wisdom' can be false because it's based on outdated premise. iirc, you were wrong about the youth vote in 2008, claiming that students aren't likely voters, and dismissed Ron Paul's growing influence in the GOP. ;)

I'm 99.99% certain that pollsters and demographers will continue to do evermore polls/surveys, analysts will continue to make their predictions, media will treat them as fact or spin them as political, and campaigns will spend millions of dollars for the data-mining and adverts. I'm 100% skeptical that means better candidates, more choices for voters, or a well-informed electorate.

---

I think you'll find that the people who do these things don't claim to know more than they do. If pundits take their research out of context, it's the pundits' fault.

Agreed. But it's nearly impossible to predict which events will happen, and when. Even extended-time weather forecasts have limitations, using state-of-the art science and predictive computer models. That said, in-person voter turn-out is always lower during inclement weather, even simple rainy days. That's one good reason for early voting and absentee/mail-in voting -- to extend the voting time.

States that don't have early voting are more vulnerable to weather events, disasters, and/or power outages that happen right before, or ON, election days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Agreed. But it's nearly impossible to predict which events will happen, and when. Even extended-time weather forecasts have limitations, using state-of-the art science and predictive computer models. That said, in-person voter turn-out is always lower during inclement weather, even simple rainy days. That's one good reason for early voting and absentee/mail-in voting -- to extend the voting time.

States that don't have early voting are more vulnerable to weather events, disasters, and/or power outages that happen right before, or ON, election days.

---

Virtually no one in poli sci tries to predict rare events; they try to figure out which factors make those events more likely. That knowledge could then be used to make necessary precautions. You're never going to be able to predict specific events because they happen for systematic (i.e. predictable) and idiosyncratic factors (particularly ones caused by free will).

We're saying basically the same thing, in different ways. Those "necessary precautions" (about voting) include voter registration efforts, expanding early voting, logistics/transportation (of groups, and during bad weather) for in-person voting, using social media, all sorts of things.

But it doesn't take a "political scientist" or polls/surveys to do those things. Just motivated and organized team work.