From your link:
Pfft. “Facts”. :rolleyes:
You’re right.
Scorn, and ridicule?
A boatload of federal prosecutors disagrees with you.
I didn’t ask about whether any of the pundits were wrong about the event happening.
I asked which of the pundits was wrong about the probability of the event happening. 'cuz all three could not be right. Only one could be. Which one? How can you tell?
What do you mean, “wrong about the probability”? We’ve already established that the occurrence of an unlikely outcome doesn’t necessarily make the estimate of its probability “wrong”.
In order to know which of several competing probabilistic models best represents the relevant real-world conditions, we’d have to look at the specific details of the models. But since the numbers in your made-up example presumably don’t have any actual mathematical models as their source, there’s no way to choose among them.
However, just because your made-up example of probability estimates isn’t mathematically meaningful doesn’t imply that actual probability estimates can’t be analyzed mathematically.
Yes, that much is clear. As a mathtard, I appreciate your effort to reduce this to a level that I can fully absorb. It was clearly a sincere effort, hence, laudable.
Each one of the pundits said the probability of the event happening was different. Wildly different. Which one estimated it correctly? Or were they all right? How can you tell?
This is a one-time event. It is not weather, where you can check a 1000 probabilistic predictions someone made about it and compare it to reality. This event does not re-occur. So how could you tell that the model for that one-time event is valid? There is no way to prove it wrong. Or right. It is unfalsifiable. That is, meaningless.
There were “mathematical models” of Trump’s elections galore. Nate Silver had one (30% or so probability). Sam Wang had one (2% probability). NYT Upshot had one (10% probability). And Richard Charnin (whoever he is) had a mathematical model that gave 98% probability of Trump’s winning the popular vote.
So - whose probability estimate was right? How can you tell?
You do remember that these wildly divergent estimates whose plausibility you’re attacking were part of your own entirely made-up example, right?
I completely agree that attempting to mathematically analyze numbers that you pulled out of your ass for a made-up example is fruitless and meaningless. What I don’t agree with is your attempt to claim that that implies anything about the mathematical meaningfulness of real probability estimates.
[QUOTE=Okrahoma]
There were “mathematical models” of Trump’s elections galore. Nate Silver had one (30% or so probability). Sam Wang had one (2% probability). NYT Upshot had one (10% probability). And Richard Charnin (whoever he is) had a mathematical model that gave 98% probability of Trump’s winning the popular vote.
So - whose probability estimate was right? How can you tell?
[/QUOTE]
Show us the models, and let’s take a look. Naturally, elections are a very complex phenomenon and no mathematical model describes them perfectly, but that doesn’t mean that mathematical models of them are meaningless.
They show you the models. Lots of pretty equations, with various weights assigned to parameters, all different of course between the models. Maybe a Monte-Carlo simulation in one case.
You cannot repeat the event. It never happened before - so the weights that are assigned to different variables in the model could not have been backtested in any way. How do you decide which estimate was the most accurate one?
If you have ONE match. Just one. No other match like this one exists or can be made again. And I tell you that I calculated, laboriously, that striking it against a particular surface will ignite it with the probability of 30%. Another “expert” says no, the probability is 70%. You strike it. It ignites. Was my probability estimate right? Was the other expert’s? I can show you all kinds of calculations, based on my estimate of what materials the match was made of. So can he (with different materials of course). Of course, the match is burned, with nothing left, so you have no way of checking.
Were our probability estimates meaningful in any way?
Look, Okrahoma, if you’d like to continue this hijack, please take it to another thread. I’m here to read about how horrible Trump is (which I knew would be the case).
But I didn’t open this thread to learn. Especially not math, probability, and statistics.
Actually if she wasn’t sure, she should probably have tested it by defending it. It’s more I think that she was sure it wasn’t legal.
:dubious:
You have never entered a Courtroom sure you were going to get shot down? Its part and parcel of being a lawyer; putting forth a case you think is unlikely to succeed; once instructions have been received.
And if you get a precedent like this, what’s to say someone in the future might not use it to refuse to defend a policy you do agree with? Like say a future DoJ refusing to defend Abortion rights?
Sean Spicer: “Hey media, stop calling this ban a ban. Only we are allowed to call it a ban! But it’s not really a ban, even though we keep calling it that.” :smack:
Sad!
It’s going to get worse — http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/trump-administration-circulates-more-draft-immigration-restrictions-focusing-on-protecting-us-jobs/2017/01/31/38529236-e741-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html
If true and if signed, would any of these be stepping on the toes of any large corporations? If so, the likelihood of them coming into effect and staying that way are slimmer.
Your post seems confused.
As to your first paragraph, I’m a lawyer in private practice. If my client tells me to defend something then I’ll do so at least up to the point where I feel I can’t put forward any honest argument. But an A-G is not just a paid gun of the President. If the A-G thinks a law is unquestionably unconstitutional, they have a duty to say so, as I understand it.
As to your second paragraph, it’s not a matter of refusing to defend a policy the A-G doesn’t agree with, it’s a matter of refusing to try to uphold a law that even the A-G believes is unquestionably unconstitutional.
There is a big difference in refusing to support something because you disagree with it; that’s a normal part of lawyering, and actively sabotaging your clients case. The remedy is to say"I don’t think I can in good faith put forward what you are instructing me to, please find someone else". Not say," my client’s case is bullshit" to the relevant forum.
And in the case of the A.G she is not just a lawyer, she is also an (acting) Cabinet member. Its a long stated convention that a Cabinet member who personally disagrees with a policy must keep those views to him/herself or resign. If she had resigned, citing her inability to support this Order; even calling a press conference to do so, no one could have faulted her.
Horse-shit. This yet another case where if it were a Republican doing it, we’d be hearing about what balls she has for standing up for American principles. And if she would have resigned, we’d hear nothing about what a precious snowflake the little miss was. Don’t insult me by pretending that’s not true.