3 ms·

Even if we accept your changing the rubric, that fails to reflect reality too. The gap between wages and cost of living has continued to increase[1]. I'm unsur

Even if we accept your changing the rubric, that fails to reflect reality too. The gap between wages and cost of living has continued to increase[1]. I'm unsure why you would want to change the rubric to something that doesn't support your claims. What level of evidence would change your mind? 1. https://archive.is/Uaw4c https://archive.is/Uaw4c

simianwords 1y ago
I can't be analysing stuff from a think tank with 2 to 10 employees. If you have more credible sources from bigger institutions I would be happy to look at it. I hope you can understand how this complicates things because every subject has many sides to it.. of course its worth looking at all but I do put my threshold at slightly larger institutes.
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  Sorry, but having a epistemic standard conditioned on organization size is one of the most bizarre stances I've ever seen. It says, "I'm not in truth on the basis of fact, but because there weren't enough authors listed on the publication."
  - simianwords 1y ago
    Yeah sorry real world doesn’t work like that. These people used a different method which was ripped apart in /r/badeconomics (true cost of living). If I had time I could analyze if myself but I’m not here to nor have time to defending against any rando theory in the internet.
    - kelseyfrog 1y ago
      Let me get this right, you give epistemic preference to commenters in reddit? This is a parody, right?
      - simianwords 1y ago
        You give epistemic preference to an institute that has 10 employees where Econ undergrads write the papers over official stats from the government?
        kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Organization size has no bearing on veracity. Veracity is a function to closeness to truth, end of story. Besides, if organization size did have a epistemic preference, then we run into obviously untrue and bizarre preferences. Maybe yours line up with these: Catholic Church (~1.3 billion baptized members) Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement (~97 million volunteers and members) Scouting Movement (~50+ million members worldwide) U.S. Department of Defense (~3 million, including active-duty, reserves, and civilians) People’s Liberation Army (China) (~2 million active personnel) Walmart (~2.1 million employees worldwide) Amazon (~1.5 million employees) Foxconn (~1 million employees) If they don't, you're just adding epicycles to a very flawed way at arriving at truth. Do you see this as a stable epistemic methodology you'd stand by elsewhere, or is it a situational tactic for this debate?
        simianwords 1y ago
        LISEP's report is a _non peer-reviewed_ white paper whose credibility I can't ascertain. Can you tell me how I can verify its credibility? Do I have to verify the report myself? Have you verified their methodology? If the LISEP report had a mistake in it, how would you know about it? Did they have anyone from the outside review it? The size of an institution is important because it gives us a proxy for its credibility to an extent. Yes I do believe that Amazon, US Department of Defense etc are more trust worthy in general than a random institute with 10 employees. But in this case, I must admit I was wrong in using head count as a proxy because I realise smaller do institutions produce good white papers. But my main point is still valid: we are using a non peer reviewed methodology that has close to zero endorsements from anyone serious. We should stick to stats like ones from CBO/BLS which have more rigorous scientific standards. CBO's report is much more rigorous "CBO’s analytic reports are also reviewed by outside experts who specialize in the issue at hand, when that is practical. In some cases, those experts are members of CBO's Panel of Economic Advisers or Panel of Health Advisers. Although such experts provide considerable assistance, CBO is solely responsible for its work." >If they don't, you're just adding epicycles to a very flawed way at arriving at truth. Do you see this as a stable epistemic methodology you'd stand by elsewhere, or is it a situational tactic for this debate? At a more personal level - please stop using cringe language. No one is going to be impressed with it. If you do want to convince someone and engage in conversation, speak their language. To your main point of "Veracity is a function to closeness to truth". Lets say hypothetically a redditor (since you have disdain for them apparently) comes up with a critique of this paper. Without doing your own analysis how do you verify whom to believe? You had already implicitly dismissed them - a dismissal which I think is fair, but why did you do it? Because it is just a random person somewhere with no credibility. Much in the same way LEPIS lies in the spectrum between credible and not so credible.

simianwords 1y ago

I can't be analysing stuff from a think tank with 2 to 10 employees. If you have more credible sources from bigger institutions I would be happy to look at it. I hope you can understand how this complicates things because every subject has many sides to it.. of course its worth looking at all but I do put my threshold at slightly larger institutes.

kelseyfrog 1y ago
Sorry, but having a epistemic standard conditioned on organization size is one of the most bizarre stances I've ever seen. It says, "I'm not in truth on the basis of fact, but because there weren't enough authors listed on the publication."
- simianwords 1y ago
  Yeah sorry real world doesn’t work like that. These people used a different method which was ripped apart in /r/badeconomics (true cost of living). If I had time I could analyze if myself but I’m not here to nor have time to defending against any rando theory in the internet.
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    Let me get this right, you give epistemic preference to commenters in reddit? This is a parody, right?
    - simianwords 1y ago
      You give epistemic preference to an institute that has 10 employees where Econ undergrads write the papers over official stats from the government?
      - kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Organization size has no bearing on veracity. Veracity is a function to closeness to truth, end of story. Besides, if organization size did have a epistemic preference, then we run into obviously untrue and bizarre preferences. Maybe yours line up with these: Catholic Church (~1.3 billion baptized members) Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement (~97 million volunteers and members) Scouting Movement (~50+ million members worldwide) U.S. Department of Defense (~3 million, including active-duty, reserves, and civilians) People’s Liberation Army (China) (~2 million active personnel) Walmart (~2.1 million employees worldwide) Amazon (~1.5 million employees) Foxconn (~1 million employees) If they don't, you're just adding epicycles to a very flawed way at arriving at truth. Do you see this as a stable epistemic methodology you'd stand by elsewhere, or is it a situational tactic for this debate?
        simianwords 1y ago
        LISEP's report is a _non peer-reviewed_ white paper whose credibility I can't ascertain. Can you tell me how I can verify its credibility? Do I have to verify the report myself? Have you verified their methodology? If the LISEP report had a mistake in it, how would you know about it? Did they have anyone from the outside review it? The size of an institution is important because it gives us a proxy for its credibility to an extent. Yes I do believe that Amazon, US Department of Defense etc are more trust worthy in general than a random institute with 10 employees. But in this case, I must admit I was wrong in using head count as a proxy because I realise smaller do institutions produce good white papers. But my main point is still valid: we are using a non peer reviewed methodology that has close to zero endorsements from anyone serious. We should stick to stats like ones from CBO/BLS which have more rigorous scientific standards. CBO's report is much more rigorous "CBO’s analytic reports are also reviewed by outside experts who specialize in the issue at hand, when that is practical. In some cases, those experts are members of CBO's Panel of Economic Advisers or Panel of Health Advisers. Although such experts provide considerable assistance, CBO is solely responsible for its work." >If they don't, you're just adding epicycles to a very flawed way at arriving at truth. Do you see this as a stable epistemic methodology you'd stand by elsewhere, or is it a situational tactic for this debate? At a more personal level - please stop using cringe language. No one is going to be impressed with it. If you do want to convince someone and engage in conversation, speak their language. To your main point of "Veracity is a function to closeness to truth". Lets say hypothetically a redditor (since you have disdain for them apparently) comes up with a critique of this paper. Without doing your own analysis how do you verify whom to believe? You had already implicitly dismissed them - a dismissal which I think is fair, but why did you do it? Because it is just a random person somewhere with no credibility. Much in the same way LEPIS lies in the spectrum between credible and not so credible.