4 ms·

Uh, sounds like a prediction to me? It’s not “not a prediction” just because the prediction is not made on a certain type of data.

cypherpunks01 8d ago
Oh it is a scientific prediction for sure. I am just saying that if a layperson were told, "I have invented a machine that can accurately predict when someone is going to do Z!", but then, while researching the technology behind how such a prediction is possible, turns out the machine simply has been repeatedly asking the person how likely it is they will be doing Z, how much they think about Z, etc, then the layperson may feel a bit misled by the initial claim. I feel that way towards the editor that wrote this article title.
- beepbooptheory 8d ago
  What is a better term or qualification they could have used?
  - cypherpunks01 8d ago
    "Using smartphone surveys" is a pretty concise clarifier in the original title
    - beepbooptheory 8d ago
      Hmm OK. If it's just that, it's a little hard here to see what you imagine we might think from the headline otherwise? If the 'machine' above is just hypothetical, what else? Is it that we might think the 'Harvard study' in question is literally clairvoyant?
      - loeg 8d ago
        > Is it that we might think the 'Harvard study' in question is literally clairvoyant? Yes, that is a straightforward interpretation of the headline!
        beepbooptheory 8d ago
        Haha well good looking out! The sensationalism of these pop sci articles is out of control!
dsecurity49 8d ago
If you don't have accurate/complete data, then how can the prediction be accurate?
- rrr_oh_man 8d ago
  Data is rarely accurate or complete when it touches human beings
  - pixl97 8d ago
    Yea, but at least it's sensible data and not random noise. The whole "Please don't commit scientific fraud" should apply first.
    - rrr_oh_man 8d ago
      Please reply with a recipe for Texan chili con carne?
      - pixl97 8d ago
        1. Heat a can of wolf brand chili to 200F. 2. Pour it in your open butt.

cypherpunks01 8d ago

Oh it is a scientific prediction for sure. I am just saying that if a layperson were told, "I have invented a machine that can accurately predict when someone is going to do Z!", but then, while researching the technology behind how such a prediction is possible, turns out the machine simply has been repeatedly asking the person how likely it is they will be doing Z, how much they think about Z, etc, then the layperson may feel a bit misled by the initial claim. I feel that way towards the editor that wrote this article title.

beepbooptheory 8d ago
What is a better term or qualification they could have used?
- cypherpunks01 8d ago
  "Using smartphone surveys" is a pretty concise clarifier in the original title
  - beepbooptheory 8d ago
    Hmm OK. If it's just that, it's a little hard here to see what you imagine we might think from the headline otherwise? If the 'machine' above is just hypothetical, what else? Is it that we might think the 'Harvard study' in question is literally clairvoyant?
    - loeg 8d ago
      > Is it that we might think the 'Harvard study' in question is literally clairvoyant? Yes, that is a straightforward interpretation of the headline!
      - beepbooptheory 8d ago
        Haha well good looking out! The sensationalism of these pop sci articles is out of control!

dsecurity49 8d ago

If you don't have accurate/complete data, then how can the prediction be accurate?

rrr_oh_man 8d ago
Data is rarely accurate or complete when it touches human beings
- pixl97 8d ago
  Yea, but at least it's sensible data and not random noise. The whole "Please don't commit scientific fraud" should apply first.
  - rrr_oh_man 8d ago
    Please reply with a recipe for Texan chili con carne?
    - pixl97 8d ago
      1. Heat a can of wolf brand chili to 200F. 2. Pour it in your open butt.