6 ms·

If they predict a 20% chance of rain, and it does rain, that doesn't show dishonesty. The second point needs a citation.

rdiddly 10y ago
It does if rational interpretation of solid evidence led to a forecast of 70% but instead they reported 20%.
- ashearer 10y ago
  That's the question then--is it the case that any rational interpretation of the polls gave an actual forecast of least 70%, and the NYT lied? The parent seemed to be saying that election's outcome alone proved that the 20% number was not only wrong, but dishonest on top of it. You need some more ingredients to prove either of those things, though.
dominotw 10y ago
>that doesn't show dishonesty. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 Not disclosing the 'veto' in the article is pretty dishonest. don't you think? Running 20 front page anti-trump articles everyday and no criticism of Clinton doesn't show any dishonesty?
- ashearer 10y ago
  This is why I don't get usually get involved in political discussions online. Someone who's committed to a position can always bring up new questions instead of responding to the original ones. (In this case I wasn't even taking a position, just pointing out where I found the logical reasoning unconvincing.) While both the new points you raise are open to debate, they shift the topic away from the two I was talking about. If I respond further we could be here forever.
vonklaus 10y ago
Can you not understand how that is not only ibtellectually dishonest, but a terrible analogy
- ashearer 10y ago
  Please illuminate me. I may be wrong, but I certainly wasn't being dishonest. The fact that you leaped straight to that conclusion doesn't help convince me that you have a particularly well-grounded belief in the NYT's dishonesty, either.

6 ms·

If they predict a 20% chance of rain, and it does rain, that doesn't show dishonesty. The second point needs a citation.

by ashearer 10y ago

rdiddly 10y ago
It does if rational interpretation of solid evidence led to a forecast of 70% but instead they reported 20%.
- ashearer 10y ago
  That's the question then--is it the case that any rational interpretation of the polls gave an actual forecast of least 70%, and the NYT lied? The parent seemed to be saying that election's outcome alone proved that the 20% number was not only wrong, but dishonest on top of it. You need some more ingredients to prove either of those things, though.
dominotw 10y ago
>that doesn't show dishonesty. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 Not disclosing the 'veto' in the article is pretty dishonest. don't you think? Running 20 front page anti-trump articles everyday and no criticism of Clinton doesn't show any dishonesty?
- ashearer 10y ago
  This is why I don't get usually get involved in political discussions online. Someone who's committed to a position can always bring up new questions instead of responding to the original ones. (In this case I wasn't even taking a position, just pointing out where I found the logical reasoning unconvincing.) While both the new points you raise are open to debate, they shift the topic away from the two I was talking about. If I respond further we could be here forever.
vonklaus 10y ago
Can you not understand how that is not only ibtellectually dishonest, but a terrible analogy
- ashearer 10y ago
  Please illuminate me. I may be wrong, but I certainly wasn't being dishonest. The fact that you leaped straight to that conclusion doesn't help convince me that you have a particularly well-grounded belief in the NYT's dishonesty, either.