[FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

Dave, 

You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to declare to be part of "the scientific method."  So if you declare that discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and you can describe a repeatable practice  which includes that as a method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's science."

I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must have been at least 4 hours ago.  So "before lunch".  

 Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions

Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their predictions.

1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation), pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of winning the election.

2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely"  will win to "almost certain" he will win.

3- davew - Trump will win.

# 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his prediction.

The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc. to come to their conclusions.

Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques he did use.

davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty.

QUESTIONS:  Are there different approaches, different avenues, different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here because I do not know how to make the question precise.  But it would have something to do with different definitions of what is considered data and different techniques/tools for digesting that data to form conclusions — in this instance predictions.

If there are different approaches, is a comparative analysis of them possible? desirable?

Different approaches — useful in different contexts? How to determine appropriate contexts.

Or, is there but one avenue to knowledge — Science — and all else is idiosyncratic opinion?

Personally, I think there is use in pursuing this type of question and then using the answers / insights to makes sense of the multiple conversations concerning COVID and the response thereto.

davew


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/