Softball
response to Michael A.M. Lerner and Ethan Hill's post The New Nostradamus
Not a useful article for purposes of science or judgement, but only for entertainment.
Did you catch the swiftly given caveat "provided the basic input is accurate"? Did you notice that the references to CIA and DOD are empty appeals to authority? Do you notice that there is no proof of his predictive powers given here in a meaningful sense? What are the failures? How were all of the models different? Has this process been tested by other scientists in any formalize scientific review process?
The predictive power is measurable. What is his success and error rate overall? What is the measure taking into account the magnitude of errors?
The comparison to CIA analysts is meaningless. First, the success rates of the praised man are given, but not those of the CIA analysts. Second, rather than compare on the measurable benchmark of accuracy as used already, the CIA analysts apparently fall short in terms of precision. But this is not measured.
This piece is an uncritical puff-piece.
Like this article? Tell the world It's Good!
not yet rated
Softball?
On the contrary, the article is useful in pointing the reader towards this "New Nostradamus". While it does not provide the reader with specifics, it does provide enough information for one to decide to look further into the topic.
It would be illogiical for the authors of a feature article vice a scientific article to provide the specifics of the prognosticator's methodology. To attempt to do so would take many volumes. It is for the reader to follow up or not as he/she chooses.
Posted on October 31, 2007 — by dunroamin
0 comments
not yet rated
A few false assumptions...
1) Whether it is chemistry or political science; the researcher has to always ensure that the basic input is accurate. "Garbage in, Garbage out" applies to ALL scientific endeavors.
2) Appeals to authority are only fallacious under certain circumstances. In this case the CIA has used his services and compared them to their own analysts. The results have a direct relation to the topic of the article...ergo it is not an "empty" or fallacious appeal to authority.
3) The article refers to PS, the PEER REVIEWED journal of the American Political Science Association and the premeir journal of the discipline in the US (an equivalent to the New England Journal of Medicine or any other peer reviewed academic journal). So to answer your questions: these methods have been and continuously are tested within the discipline.
Finally, remember this is a e-magazine article with popular appeal...not an academic journal. It is not going to give you all the technical specifics. If you want that you need to dig deeper than a journalistic article that only scratches the surface of the topic at hand.
Posted on March 26, 2008 — by T_Mason
0 comments