4 ms·

I don't think the author is off at all. Sounds spot on to me.

by maps7 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago
Here is the relevant passage: "The answer, I realized, is that they didn't think they could get caught. They didn't realize there was any danger in making false predictions. These people constantly make false predictions, and get away with it, because the things they make predictions about either have mushy enough outcomes that they can bluster their way out of trouble, or happen so far in the future that few remember what they said. An epidemic is different. It falsifies your predictions rapidly and unequivocally." Paul believes that this is all about the quality of the predictions, and about the perps getting caught. That's nonsense. Nobody, and I really mean that, nobody has been held accountable for the longest time about the quality of their predictions. Or even the quality of their work. Mushy, exact or otherwise. These people have absolutely nothing to fear from the quality of their work product, and their hand in that, being held accountable. It just won't happen. We have 100's of miles of video tape by now documenting falsehoods spoken by officials. The consequences: nil. Nothing. Zip, Nada, etc. And as long as that is the case, as long as there are no consequences this shit will continue.
- jjtheblunt 7y ago
  Daringfireball holds people accountable all the time, in particular for wrong prognostications. It's semi hilarious, in that it's relieving.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    And what consquences does that have? As in, did anybody lose their job, go to jail or faced some other stiff penalty? If not then it doesn't count. In NL a minister resigned because he got caught in a lie. Imagine that. It wasn't even a big one, it is just that that is unacceptable here. I'm sure they lie all the time, it is just that getting caught is enough to do you in. So not a perfect system by a long shot but it does the job.
    - jjtheblunt 7y ago
      Totally agree with the question. _Maybe_ the discredited journalists get less prominent as they are discredited, but I wonder the same as you asked.
- maps7 7y ago
  The article doesn't disagree with that. Here's the relevant parts: "An event like this is thus a uniquely powerful way of taking people's measure." and "Now that we've seen the results, let's remember what we saw, because this is the most accurate test of credibility we're ever likely to have. I hope."
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Sorry, but no. There have been thousands if not tens of thousands of such testable events over the last couple of years and in not even a single case has this led to repercussions against those that lied. Nobody's measure has been taken in a way that they cared about. We can record this one and likely it won't make any difference either. It's just whose team you are on now, not about whether there is anything truthful being said.
    - maps7 7y ago
      What are you apologizing for? You could list some of the testable events if you want. When you have them listed reread the article and compare against it. Let me know how you get on.

I don't think the author is off at all. Sounds spot on to me.

by maps7 7y ago

I don't think the author is off at all. Sounds spot on to me.

Here is the relevant passage: "The answer, I realized, is that they didn't think they could get caught. They didn't realize there was any danger in making false predictions. These people constantly make false predictions, and get away with it, because the things they make predictions about either have mushy enough outcomes that they can bluster their way out of trouble, or happen so far in the future that few remember what they said. An epidemic is different. It falsifies your predictions rapidly and unequivocally." Paul believes that this is all about the quality of the predictions, and about the perps getting caught. That's nonsense. Nobody, and I really mean that, nobody has been held accountable for the longest time about the quality of their predictions. Or even the quality of their work. Mushy, exact or otherwise. These people have absolutely nothing to fear from the quality of their work product, and their hand in that, being held accountable. It just won't happen. We have 100's of miles of video tape by now documenting falsehoods spoken by officials. The consequences: nil. Nothing. Zip, Nada, etc. And as long as that is the case, as long as there are no consequences this shit will continue.

jjtheblunt 7y ago
Daringfireball holds people accountable all the time, in particular for wrong prognostications. It's semi hilarious, in that it's relieving.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  And what consquences does that have? As in, did anybody lose their job, go to jail or faced some other stiff penalty? If not then it doesn't count. In NL a minister resigned because he got caught in a lie. Imagine that. It wasn't even a big one, it is just that that is unacceptable here. I'm sure they lie all the time, it is just that getting caught is enough to do you in. So not a perfect system by a long shot but it does the job.
  - jjtheblunt 7y ago
    Totally agree with the question. _Maybe_ the discredited journalists get less prominent as they are discredited, but I wonder the same as you asked.
maps7 7y ago
The article doesn't disagree with that. Here's the relevant parts: "An event like this is thus a uniquely powerful way of taking people's measure." and "Now that we've seen the results, let's remember what we saw, because this is the most accurate test of credibility we're ever likely to have. I hope."
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Sorry, but no. There have been thousands if not tens of thousands of such testable events over the last couple of years and in not even a single case has this led to repercussions against those that lied. Nobody's measure has been taken in a way that they cared about. We can record this one and likely it won't make any difference either. It's just whose team you are on now, not about whether there is anything truthful being said.
  - maps7 7y ago
    What are you apologizing for? You could list some of the testable events if you want. When you have them listed reread the article and compare against it. Let me know how you get on.