5 ms·

> You are completely wrong. Citation needed. There has never been a study of forecasting ability that has stood the test of time -- ever, anywhere. > I don't

by lutusp 12y ago

> You are completely wrong. Citation needed. There has never been a study of forecasting ability that has stood the test of time -- ever, anywhere. > I don't know why everyone seems to think the researchers are incompetent. The null hypothesis, the gold standard of statistical science, offers this as the default explanation, and the researchers have the burden of evidence to contradict it. They will fail, indeed they don't seem to realize they have the burden of evidence. Have you even considered that the positive results arise from chance? What is the p-factor for their result? Do you know what I am referring to? Your quotation doesn't have a single reliable word in it, or any content recognizable as science. If it were a scientific paper, it would contain the standard phrase, "Here is our p-factor, the statistical assessment that our result arises from chance." But it's not science, it's public relations. The thesis is assumed to be correct until incontrovertible evidence proves it false -- the opposite of the scientific outlook, which assumes an idea to be false until incontrovertible evidence supports it.

Houshalter 12y ago
I gave a citation. The quote is more than enough evidence to disprove your naive "the researchers didn't bother to test for regression to mean" hypothesis. They didn't give a p-value, but the reported effect size is quite huge to be chance, and the study included thousands of people.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > I gave a citation. You clearly don't understand the meaning of "citation" among scientists. You posted a quote from a press release that didn't even pretend to be a scientific assessment of the work. > The quote is more than enough evidence Press releases aren't evidence. Were this not the case, Bigfoot would come into existence on the strength of his press coverage. > They didn't give a p-value So, which is it? "The quote is more than enough evidence", or "They didn't give a p-value"? They cannot both be true. > ... but the reported effect size is quite huge to be chance, and the study included thousands of people. I can see you have no idea how science works. > ... to disprove your naive "the researchers didn't bother to test for regression to mean" You are also not above inventing positions for other people.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    I never said anything about "science". Only that your accusations are garbage. It's one thing to say "let's not take this too seriously because they haven't published anything yet", which I don't even know is true, but whatever. However you went above and beyond that: * claiming their methodology was "retrospective design" * claiming they picked statistical outliers and didn't bother to test if they continued to make good predictions: "The described program collects forecasts, forecasts that can be expected to be half right and half wrong for binary questions, throws out those that by chance were wrong, and preserves those that by chance were right." * various insults: they don't understand logic, statistics, it's pseudoscience, etc. * claim they twisted language to make failed forecasts look successful. * claim they didn't do any statistical analysis
sp332 12y ago
The events being tested are not up to chance. There is lots of evidence about which way a situation will go. The test is not predicting a coin toss, but interpreting information about a complex situation.

by lutusp 12y ago

Houshalter 12y ago

I gave a citation. The quote is more than enough evidence to disprove your naive "the researchers didn't bother to test for regression to mean" hypothesis. They didn't give a p-value, but the reported effect size is quite huge to be chance, and the study included thousands of people.

lutusp 12y ago
> I gave a citation. You clearly don't understand the meaning of "citation" among scientists. You posted a quote from a press release that didn't even pretend to be a scientific assessment of the work. > The quote is more than enough evidence Press releases aren't evidence. Were this not the case, Bigfoot would come into existence on the strength of his press coverage. > They didn't give a p-value So, which is it? "The quote is more than enough evidence", or "They didn't give a p-value"? They cannot both be true. > ... but the reported effect size is quite huge to be chance, and the study included thousands of people. I can see you have no idea how science works. > ... to disprove your naive "the researchers didn't bother to test for regression to mean" You are also not above inventing positions for other people.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  I never said anything about "science". Only that your accusations are garbage. It's one thing to say "let's not take this too seriously because they haven't published anything yet", which I don't even know is true, but whatever. However you went above and beyond that: * claiming their methodology was "retrospective design" * claiming they picked statistical outliers and didn't bother to test if they continued to make good predictions: "The described program collects forecasts, forecasts that can be expected to be half right and half wrong for binary questions, throws out those that by chance were wrong, and preserves those that by chance were right." * various insults: they don't understand logic, statistics, it's pseudoscience, etc. * claim they twisted language to make failed forecasts look successful. * claim they didn't do any statistical analysis

sp332 12y ago

The events being tested are not up to chance. There is lots of evidence about which way a situation will go. The test is not predicting a coin toss, but interpreting information about a complex situation.