• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Let's make America smart again

Ziggurat said:
Once again you cannot challenge my argument that Politifact's sampling is not reliable. But despite having no reason to accept its sampling as representative, you still want me to because... reasons.
Click to expand...

Of course I cannot challenge an argument that is predicated on "nuh-uh." I only want you to accept it as evidence, even if it is weak evidence. You refuse to even do that because...nuh-uh

Ziggurat said:
And I never said it was impossible to do good sampling. It's hard, though, and furthermore I don't even think it's worth the effort. And that's why I don't blame Politifact for not trying.
Click to expand...

Pedantic. Practically impossible, although technically possible with a herculean amount of effort, and likely to be handwaved away even after all that effort because...nuh-uh.

Ziggurat said:
Supposing hypothetical candidate A lies 10% of the time, but they lie about the things you care about the most. Candidate B lies 20% of the time, but they lie about things you don't care about. Which candidate has a bigger honesty problem for you? Candidate A, obviously, even though candidate B lies more often. There's a large subjective component here, and justifiably so because we don't all have the same priorities. Why should we treat all lies as being the same? Well, we shouldn't, obviously. Furthermore we need not (and will not) always agree on which lies are more serious, because we do not have identical values.

So if you were to say that you are bothered more by Trump's lies than by Hillary's lies, that's a perfectly valid position. I have no basis on which to challenge it. But you don't need to resort to meaningless statistics to draw that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Now, this bit is actually well thought out and well stated. I maintain that you similarly have no basis to challenge a claim that Trump lies more often than Clinton if you are being consistent, though.
 
wareyin said:
Of course I cannot challenge an argument that is predicated on "nuh-uh."
Click to expand...

It's predicated on a basic understanding of statistics. Which you evidently don't have.

Now, this bit is actually well thought out and well stated. I maintain that you similarly have no basis to challenge a claim that Trump lies more often than Clinton if you are being consistent, though.
Click to expand...

You can maintain it all you want to, but it's not true.
 
wareyin said:
There's that nuh-uh argument again. It may not be convincing, but it sure is constant.
Click to expand...

I presented a real argument about sampling issues, Argumemnon understood it, but you're still in denial about it. You offer nothing in rebuttal except ad hominems and grade-school taunts, and yet you claim I'm the one lacking substance. I'm not offering any new counterargument because I don't need to: my original argument suffices, because you never addressed it.
 
Ziggurat said:
I presented a real argument about sampling issues, Argumemnon understood it, but you're still in denial about it. You offer nothing in rebuttal except ad hominems and grade-school taunts, and yet you claim I'm the one lacking substance. I'm not offering any new counterargument because I don't need to: my original argument suffices, because you never addressed it.
Click to expand...

Your "real" argument is essentially a complete refusal to accept any possible evidence because it is impossible to prove to your satisfaction that the sample is unbiased and representative. In other words: "nuh-uh." Such an argument does not deserve a rebuttal.
 
wareyin said:
Your "real" argument is essentially a complete refusal to accept any possible evidence
Click to expand...

Straw man much?

because it is impossible to prove to your satisfaction that the sample is unbiased and representative.
Click to expand...

Whether or not I would accept some hypothetical sample doesn't change the fact that the sample on offer is unreliable. You have yet to come to terms with this most basic fact, and you have yet to put forth any argument for why it is reliable. You want the entire question to be off limits because reasons.

The kicker is that Politifact not only doesn't try to make their sample unbiased and representative, they never once claim that their sample is unbiased and representative.
 
An underlying assumption in this ongoing liar debate appears to be that whether one lies more than another is so subjective a matter due to sampling considerations, that no judgement could be made.

There are papers that explore the ability to detect patterns of deception in language (cf www.cs.columbia.edu/~julia/papers/Hancocketal08.pdf ). Has the scholarly work on detection of deception been consulted?

Note: I am not weighing in on prior research cited, and it's validity. I would have to do a more thorough analysis, and I am not particularly invested in doing so.
 
LSSBB said:
An underlying assumption in this ongoing liar debate appears to be that whether one lies more than another is so subjective a matter due to sampling considerations, that no judgement could be made.
Click to expand...

I've explicitly stated the opposite. The subjectivity of lies remains even with perfect sampling. Furthermore, with or without perfect sampling we can still make judgments about subjective subjects. There's nothing inherently wrong with something being subjective. We should just be honest about the nature of things.
 
Ziggurat said:
Straw man much?



Whether or not I would accept some hypothetical sample doesn't change the fact that the sample on offer is unreliable. You have yet to come to terms with this most basic fact, and you have yet to put forth any argument for why it is reliable. You want the entire question to be off limits because reasons.

The kicker is that Politifact not only doesn't try to make their sample unbiased and representative, they never once claim that their sample is unbiased and representative.
Click to expand...

What evidence would you accept that one person lies more than another person? If my statement that you would refuse to accept any evidence is a strawman, then there must be some evidence you would accept. And to forestall pedantry, a complete list of everything both people have ever said with all lies tallied is not realistically possible.
 
wareyin said:
What evidence would you accept that one person lies more than another person?
Click to expand...

I've already told you.

If my statement that you would refuse to accept any evidence is a strawman
Click to expand...

"nuh-uh" is the strawman. This is simply a flat-out lie.

And to forestall pedantry, a complete list of everything both people have ever said with all lies tallied is not realistically possible.
Click to expand...

Which is why I suggested alternatives to that.

Of course, we can also ask the same from you: what do YOU think is required to show that one person lies more than another? Can you do it with a hand-picked sample?
 
Ziggurat said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11593629#post11593629
Click to expand...

Yeah but I don't see in there that there's a solution you would accept. In fact you start off by explicitly saying that there isn't one. Did I misunderstand you when I first read it? Are you saying that if you could "confine it to something more limited, like debate statements or press conferences", essentially the same solution I proposed and that you said was too time-consuming, would qualify?
 
Ziggurat said:
LSSBB said:
An underlying assumption in this ongoing liar debate appears to be that whether one lies more than another is so subjective a matter due to sampling considerations, that no judgement could be made.
Click to expand...
I've explicitly stated the opposite. The subjectivity of lies remains even with perfect sampling. Furthermore, with or without perfect sampling we can still make judgments about subjective subjects. There's nothing inherently wrong with something being subjective. We should just be honest about the nature of things.
Click to expand...

Are you certain you linked to the correct post? Because I read nothing in the one you linked to which is the opposite of what LSSBB stated. Moreover, I certainly have the impression that your belief is that no judgement on whether one lies more than another can be made because, for all intents and purposes, no sample can be free of bias or representative enough. If this is not representative of your position, then why do you refuse to accept any judgement that Trump lies more?
 
wareyin said:
Are you certain you linked to the correct post? Because I read nothing in the one you linked to which is the opposite of what LSSBB stated.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I linked to the correct post, but perhaps I should clarify. That post states the exact opposite of what LSSBB claims is the underlying assumption in the debate, meaning that I did not assume what LSSBB claims people assume. The contents of that post may well be compatible with LSSBB's own position.

Moreover, I certainly have the impression that your belief is that no judgement on whether one lies more than another can be made because, for all intents and purposes, no sample can be free of bias or representative enough. If this is not representative of your position, then why do you refuse to accept any judgement that Trump lies more?
Click to expand...

First off, I haven't refused to accept any judgment that Trump lies more. I've refused to accept ONE judgment, it just happens to be the only one on offer. Second, the post I linked to gives an explicit example of the kind of judgment about lies which I think are entirely reasonable. In my considered opinion, the raw number of lies is a wholly inadequate indicator, and so there's really little point in obsessing about measurements of it, especially by such flawed methods as presented here.
 
Argumemnon said:
Yeah but I don't see in there that there's a solution you would accept. In fact you start off by explicitly saying that there isn't one.
Click to expand...

I start off by describing the difficulties of obtaining such a solution. I never said it was impossible (though I do claim it's not worthwhile).

Did I misunderstand you when I first read it? Are you saying that if you could "confine it to something more limited, like debate statements or press conferences", essentially the same solution I proposed and that you said was too time-consuming, would qualify?
Click to expand...

Yes, it would qualify. If you take a small enough sub-population (debate statements are a sub-population of all statements), then you can sample that entire sub-population, and your statistics for that sub-population will not be subject to sampling errors. Of course those statistics don't transfer to the larger population, but you don't need them to, you can confine your conclusions to that sub-population.

There's little point in doing all that work, but it would solve the sampling problem.
 
Ziggurat said:
... This thread starts with the unquestioned assumption that people voted for Trump because they're stupid, and not just stupid but stupider than before. No other causes were considered. It can't be because of any flaw in liberalism's agenda, it can't be because of any shortcomings in the performance of the Democrats under Obama, it can't be because of any weakness in their chosen candidate, it can't even be because of any tactical mistakes in the campaign. No, it can only be because Trump voters were stupid.

That lack of any introspection will keep the Democrats in the wings for the next 8 years, maybe more.
Click to expand...

And this one does not. Strangely, since the orientation is academic and geared entirely toward fact-based and reasoned debate, without a snide comment in sight, not a single Trumpette has shown up... or liberal. You'd be surprised at how many flaws in liberal positions I'd agree with.... A bit of snark, but there is a short list here that does recognize liberal mistakes and makes recommendations for both parties. Then we have the deeper workings of the nature of truth, what position it occupies in the mind when considered unerring, and a host of issues across the board that are amenable to such analysis.

At this juncture, it can be quite fairly said that in transparent effort to avoid any adjustment in self-image, tough subjects are being avoided, history poo-pooed, and ISF comments are of the usual back-and-forth, heat-no-light fare. I'd almost agree with caveman1917 in his various comments to the effect Western conservatives and liberals share a common ill, and that is an inability to recognize the strains of ubermensch thinking that are in the culture (without that meaning Putin or Marx have anything of worth to say about how to organize society).

It's actually standard, good old capitalism and democracy that are failing, but not on merit, but from poor policy acting over decades, undermining both. There is now widespread support, on and off ISF, for the view that democracy allows for mob rule, that populations cannot be trusted with their own best self-interest. This is a quick-and-dirty take that ignores the significant erosion of the fourth estate and the important role it plays in representative democracy, as well as the transformation of national economies into weaker players vis-a-vis transnational corporate interests. There is a way back that both sober conservatives and thinking liberals might craft, but it most certainly will not be a result of avoiding real issues or sugarcoating history.
 
MuDPhuD said:
Indeed.

What the USA seems to need is much more consistent primary and secondary education. If an American child lives in a wealthy suburb he/she will have quite decent public schools and depending on the wealth of the parents may go to the even better private schools.
If an American child grows up in a "blue collar" or urban environment, the public schools will be crap, and the private schools are financially out of reach.

This is a failure of public school funding system which restricts school budgets by the tax base of the families who use the schools. Thus there are large numbers of unhappy people trapped in their class, who have not learned any critical thinking skills, and are bound to be easily lead by a demagogue who promises to do whatever they want to hear.

Critical thinking education in ALL primary and secondary schools is much more important than free higher education a la Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...

Very well said, sir. I graduated in 1969 and I noticed a degradation in the educational system just 3-5 yrs. after I graduated. The only thing I would add to give your statement more weight and impact is this guy here talking about America's H-1B Genius visa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0Y9j_CGgM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom