Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have demonstrated that you lack even a weak grasp of statistics.
Your citation above quotes a lot of other people claiming that Nate Silver said Trump had no chance, but Nate Silver never predicted that Trump had 'zero chance'.
Silver always had Trump at some small probability of winning the presidential election. That's not 'zero chance', as you claimed in your original post.
I'd ask you to admit that you were incorrect in your blanket statement, but who are we kidding here...there's only a 0.0001% chance of that happening.
You have demonstrated that you lack even a weak grasp of statistics.
Your citation above quotes a lot of other people claiming that Nate Silver said Trump had no chance, but Nate Silver never predicted that Trump had 'zero chance'.
Silver always had Trump at some small probability of winning the presidential election. That's not 'zero chance', as you claimed in your original post.
I'd ask you to admit that you were incorrect in your blanket statement, but who are we kidding here...there's only a 0.0001% chance of that happening.
Saying that he had the same chance as playing for an NFL team is saying he had no chance. Silver admitted that the statement was based upon his personal bias and NOT statistics.
Saying that he had the same chance as playing for an NFL team is saying he had no chance. Silver admitted that the statement was based upon his personal bias and NOT statistics.
What is your point ? You agreed in previous posts that Trump winning was improbable
As long as Silver didn't put his chance at 0, then he wasn't wrong.
The argument was that being wrong would ruin your reputation. I simply noted that it didn't Silver's.
Because Nate Silver constantly used the best data and methods available to make his predictions, which at the night of the election gave Trump pretty decent odds.
Thats called using science to make predictions. And as events unfolded the probabilities changes, and Nate Silver reported those.
Thats how you make a reputation. By making prediction based on current facts. Im pretty impressed by Nate Silver, and those that understand what he does mostly are too.
Because Nate Silver constantly used the best data and methods available to make his predictions, which at the night of the election gave Trump pretty decent odds.
Thats called using science to make predictions. And as events unfolded the probabilities changes, and Nate Silver reported those.
Thats how you make a reputation. By making prediction based on current facts. Im pretty impressed by Nate Silver, and those that understand what he does mostly are too.
The argument was that being wrong would ruin your reputation. I simply noted that it didn't Silver's.
Except, Nate silver wasn't wrong. That's the point I'm trying to get you to understand
Probibility - the likelihood of something happening or being the case.
Threading the needle , as Trump did, doesn't make anyone wrong if you are talking about probabilities
Nate silver predicts the likelihood of elections , not the actual outcomes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
