4 ms·

> debunked, I would say That's actually NOT for you to say. Rationalizing why it's not without doing the analysis yourself doesn't buy you that right, even if

> debunked, I would say That's actually NOT for you to say. Rationalizing why it's not without doing the analysis yourself doesn't buy you that right, even if you read it somewhere and it sounds good.

kbenson 10y ago
I think "I would say" is meant as a stand-in for "in my opinion", which is entirely within their right. It's easy to say you have to go a level deeper to get the truth, but at some level you have to accept the legitimacy of a source. If you don't trust Nate Silver, you can run the analysis yourself. You then have to choose whether to trust the source of the data. If you don't trust that, and you have the ability to to go the pre-aggregated data, you can go to that. Do you trust the people reporting that? At some point,it's not feasible to follow the chain of custody all the way back, so you have to make a call as to what level you are willing to go back before trusting the source. If someone trusts the integrity and competency of Nate Silver, then they should be able to apply some level of assurance to his results based on that. If you don't trust Nate Silver's results because you doubt his integrity or competency, or even if you think it's just too important to trust to a single person, then speak to that, not to some simplistic and often impossible to satisfy ideal of determining everything yourself from pure sources.
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  On the other side of Nate Silver, you have J. Alex Halderman and Ron Rivest. I respect Nate Silver, but I think everyone can speak to the need to not trust a single person in this case.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Which would have been an entirely acceptable and valid reply to the original comment, while also providing some additional information (who is disagreeing) in context. :)
  - lets-tryagain 10y ago
    Reputation really isn't relevant here...the election is over, Clinton already delivered a concession without raising criticism herself...the bar here is incredibly high and their evidence seems mostly hypothetical. To satisfy the criticism suggested, you would have to re-run the election...it's just not happening

kbenson 10y ago

I think "I would say" is meant as a stand-in for "in my opinion", which is entirely within their right. It's easy to say you have to go a level deeper to get the truth, but at some level you have to accept the legitimacy of a source. If you don't trust Nate Silver, you can run the analysis yourself. You then have to choose whether to trust the source of the data. If you don't trust that, and you have the ability to to go the pre-aggregated data, you can go to that. Do you trust the people reporting that? At some point,it's not feasible to follow the chain of custody all the way back, so you have to make a call as to what level you are willing to go back before trusting the source. If someone trusts the integrity and competency of Nate Silver, then they should be able to apply some level of assurance to his results based on that. If you don't trust Nate Silver's results because you doubt his integrity or competency, or even if you think it's just too important to trust to a single person, then speak to that, not to some simplistic and often impossible to satisfy ideal of determining everything yourself from pure sources.

throwaway5752 10y ago
On the other side of Nate Silver, you have J. Alex Halderman and Ron Rivest. I respect Nate Silver, but I think everyone can speak to the need to not trust a single person in this case.
- kbenson 10y ago
  Which would have been an entirely acceptable and valid reply to the original comment, while also providing some additional information (who is disagreeing) in context. :)
- lets-tryagain 10y ago
  Reputation really isn't relevant here...the election is over, Clinton already delivered a concession without raising criticism herself...the bar here is incredibly high and their evidence seems mostly hypothetical. To satisfy the criticism suggested, you would have to re-run the election...it's just not happening