The 2016 election
Lmao.
This guy cracks me up. A single case that was studied by a tiny fraction of one subdiscipline is supposed to invalidate thousands of findings in a dozen different disciplines.
I think you're probably generalizing just a *bit* beyond the convex hull of your evidence.
polls are the gold standard of quant social sciences? Says who?"The state polls . . . systematically underestimated Donald J. Trump's standing in the Upper Midwest and Northeast."
This demonstrates the fundamental unreliability of quant social science -- as such polls (measurements) are the gold standard of the quant social sciences.
GAG claimed that his book amounted to arguing that "water is wet," and that this was therefore an advance in our scientific understanding.So is everyone also useless and empty headed?
Just quant political scientists -- who dedicate their careers to generating the knowledge that "Trump could win".
The 2016 election
Lmao.
This guy cracks me up. A single case that was studied by a tiny fraction of one subdiscipline is supposed to invalidate thousands of findings in a dozen different disciplines.
I think you're probably generalizing just a *bit* beyond the convex hull of your evidence.
GAG generalizes on the basis of a single case. Makes sense. He believes in generalization.
link?
A single case that was studied by a tiny fraction of one subdiscipline is supposed to invalidate thousands of findings in a dozen different disciplines.
Not a single one externally validated. Indeed, they've all been externally invalidated.
Let me ask you, do you know what external validation is?
link?
link?
A single case that was studied by a tiny fraction of one subdiscipline is supposed to invalidate thousands of findings in a dozen different disciplines.
Not a single one externally validated. Indeed, they've all been externally invalidated.Let me ask you, do you know what external validation is?
Quant political science is similar theoretical physics in a key sense. Physicists talk amongst themselves (through journals, etc.), theorizing, speculating about how the physical world works -- searching for external validation of their arguments. They engage in grand, very costly experiments, projects to externally validate their extensive theorizing. When these grand, very costly experiments, projects fail to confirm their arguments, they go back to the drawing board -- realizing their positions were not useful in understanding the world.
The 2016 election was a grand, costly project to validate the entire body of quant political science. Numerous, high quality polls (measurements) were taken based on the thinking, theorizing of quant political science. This project failed to validate quant theorizing -- thereby showing that quant political science is not useful in understanding the world.
no
Quant political science is similar theoretical physics in a key sense. Physicists talk amongst themselves (through journals, etc.), theorizing, speculating about how the physical world works -- searching for external validation of their arguments. They engage in grand, very costly experiments, projects to externally validate their extensive theorizing. When these grand, very costly experiments, projects fail to confirm their arguments, they go back to the drawing board -- realizing their positions were not useful in understanding the world.
The 2016 election was a grand, costly project to validate the entire body of quant political science. Numerous, high quality polls (measurements) were taken based on the thinking, theorizing of quant political science. This project failed to validate quant theorizing -- thereby showing that quant political science is not useful in understanding the world.
Most people don't care about this. And, the ones that do, will tell you a very different story.
Quant political science is similar theoretical physics in a key sense. Physicists talk amongst themselves (through journals, etc.), theorizing, speculating about how the physical world works -- searching for external validation of their arguments. They engage in grand, very costly experiments, projects to externally validate their extensive theorizing. When these grand, very costly experiments, projects fail to confirm their arguments, they go back to the drawing board -- realizing their positions were not useful in understanding the world.
The 2016 election was a grand, costly project to validate the entire body of quant political science. Numerous, high quality polls (measurements) were taken based on the thinking, theorizing of quant political science. This project failed to validate quant theorizing -- thereby showing that quant political science is not useful in understanding the world.
lol you're saying that theoretical physics engage in experiments (aka "grand" experiments lol).
yikes.
Quant political science is similar theoretical physics in a key sense. Physicists talk amongst themselves (through journals, etc.), theorizing, speculating about how the physical world works -- searching for external validation of their arguments. They engage in grand, very costly experiments, projects to externally validate their extensive theorizing. When these grand, very costly experiments, projects fail to confirm their arguments, they go back to the drawing board -- realizing their positions were not useful in understanding the world.
The 2016 election was a grand, costly project to validate the entire body of quant political science. Numerous, high quality polls (measurements) were taken based on the thinking, theorizing of quant political science. This project failed to validate quant theorizing -- thereby showing that quant political science is not useful in understanding the world.
"to validate the entire body of quant political science."
how does the 2016 election validate the entire body of quant political science, the vast majority of which having nothing to do with U.S. presidential elections?
Quant political science is similar theoretical physics in a key sense. Physicists talk amongst themselves (through journals, etc.), theorizing, speculating about how the physical world works -- searching for external validation of their arguments. They engage in grand, very costly experiments, projects to externally validate their extensive theorizing. When these grand, very costly experiments, projects fail to confirm their arguments, they go back to the drawing board -- realizing their positions were not useful in understanding the world.
The 2016 election was a grand, costly project to validate the entire body of quant political science. Numerous, high quality polls (measurements) were taken based on the thinking, theorizing of quant political science. This project failed to validate quant theorizing -- thereby showing that quant political science is not useful in understanding the world.
"to validate the entire body of quant political science."
how does the 2016 election validate the entire body of quant political science, the vast majority of which having nothing to do with U.S. presidential elections?
Not just that, but the troll also says all studies conducted in every disciple have been "externally invalidated"
link?
A single case that was studied by a tiny fraction of one subdiscipline is supposed to invalidate thousands of findings in a dozen different disciplines.
Not a single one externally validated. Indeed, they've all been externally invalidated.