4 ms·

So you go from saying what I claimed "isn't born out in the data" to saying there's no way of knowing when the effects kick in (though you do give some sense of

So you go from saying what I claimed "isn't born out in the data" to saying there's no way of knowing when the effects kick in (though you do give some sense of timelines, which happen to line up pretty well with what is observed), to saying the effects we do see in the data (contradicting your first point) "can be explained by seasonality". Just sounds like you're making up whatever excuses you can to avoid giving credit where credit is due. Occam's Razor here says that the dump of money helped people, as that is by far the simplest explanation. It's your convoluted mishmash of viewpoints that is objectively more complex.

LoveGracePeace 5y ago
Occam's Razor doesn't apply by the merit of your correct use of the term "dump" implying excessiveness; whereas the correct application of Occam's Razor in a discussion, is no more than is required: https://towardsdatascience.com/stop-using-the-occams-razor-principle-7281d143f9e6 https://towardsdatascience.com/stop-using-the-occams-razor-p... Plus, you attacked the person instead of their ideas: "your convoluted mishmash of viewpoints".
pdonis 5y ago
> So you go from saying what I claimed "isn't born out in the data" to saying there's no way of knowing when the effects kick in No, I didn't "go from" one of those criticisms to the other. I am making both of them. I am saying both of the following: (1) The variation in the data can be explained by things we already know happen: seasonality and new variants emerging. So there's no need to hypothesize an additional effect just because you would like to claim that printing trillions of dollars of new money was a good idea. (2) The model you are using to make your claimed prediction can't make any such prediction anyway, because it can't predict how long it should take for the effects of printing trillions of dollars of new money to show up in the data on COVID deaths. So even if we did see something in the data that could not be explained by seasonality and new variants emerging, we would have no reason to believe that it was due to printing trillions of dollars of new money. It's perfectly possible for both of those things to be true. > the effects we do see in the data (contradicting your first point) My first point makes no such claim. Indeed, it says the opposite: it says there is variation in the data. > Occam's Razor here says that the dump of money helped people, as that is by far the simplest explanation. No, it isn't. The simplest explanation is the one that does not hypothesize any new effects over and above the ones we already know happen, like seasonality and new variants emerging. Both of these have been visible in the data throughout this pandemic. Indeed, both of these effects are well known and expected for any viral infection that causes respiratory illness. Or have you never heard the term "flu season" or been aware that flu vaccines have to change every year because of new variants?
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  You cannot make both criticisms and remain internally consistent in your argument. Either you do know what is in the data or you can't know what's in the data. You cannot argue both, and yet you continue to try. Nothing else in your comment follows, since this does not follow.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > You cannot make both criticisms and remain internally consistent Sure I can. The inconsistency you think you see is in the straw man version of my argument that you have concocted in your head, not in my actual argument.
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      It is an inconsistency I think I see, because an inconsistency exists in your actual argument, though your attempt at gaslighting me is a perfectly fine example of why I'm not going to continue with this conversation any further, so thank you for that.

LoveGracePeace 5y ago

Occam's Razor doesn't apply by the merit of your correct use of the term "dump" implying excessiveness; whereas the correct application of Occam's Razor in a discussion, is no more than is required: https://towardsdatascience.com/stop-using-the-occams-razor-principle-7281d143f9e6 https://towardsdatascience.com/stop-using-the-occams-razor-p... Plus, you attacked the person instead of their ideas: "your convoluted mishmash of viewpoints".

pdonis 5y ago

> So you go from saying what I claimed "isn't born out in the data" to saying there's no way of knowing when the effects kick in No, I didn't "go from" one of those criticisms to the other. I am making both of them. I am saying both of the following: (1) The variation in the data can be explained by things we already know happen: seasonality and new variants emerging. So there's no need to hypothesize an additional effect just because you would like to claim that printing trillions of dollars of new money was a good idea. (2) The model you are using to make your claimed prediction can't make any such prediction anyway, because it can't predict how long it should take for the effects of printing trillions of dollars of new money to show up in the data on COVID deaths. So even if we did see something in the data that could not be explained by seasonality and new variants emerging, we would have no reason to believe that it was due to printing trillions of dollars of new money. It's perfectly possible for both of those things to be true. > the effects we do see in the data (contradicting your first point) My first point makes no such claim. Indeed, it says the opposite: it says there is variation in the data. > Occam's Razor here says that the dump of money helped people, as that is by far the simplest explanation. No, it isn't. The simplest explanation is the one that does not hypothesize any new effects over and above the ones we already know happen, like seasonality and new variants emerging. Both of these have been visible in the data throughout this pandemic. Indeed, both of these effects are well known and expected for any viral infection that causes respiratory illness. Or have you never heard the term "flu season" or been aware that flu vaccines have to change every year because of new variants?

TameAntelope 5y ago
You cannot make both criticisms and remain internally consistent in your argument. Either you do know what is in the data or you can't know what's in the data. You cannot argue both, and yet you continue to try. Nothing else in your comment follows, since this does not follow.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > You cannot make both criticisms and remain internally consistent Sure I can. The inconsistency you think you see is in the straw man version of my argument that you have concocted in your head, not in my actual argument.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    It is an inconsistency I think I see, because an inconsistency exists in your actual argument, though your attempt at gaslighting me is a perfectly fine example of why I'm not going to continue with this conversation any further, so thank you for that.