|
| Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
On predictions you are of course correct that a sample of 1
does not give convincing refutation. However the point here
is that FM has a truly awful track record at predicting
outcomes. He's only slightly better at reporting germane
events that have already occurred, with glib elision of
details about just how wrong his predictions had turned out.
The recent FM piece reflects, I suspect, not merely the
criticism he refers to, but being hit in his wallet by fewer
news organizations requesting comments from him. As I
mentioned awhile back, I've started commenting on articles
which used FM quotes asking why they could not find a more
credible source for opinions about the software IP topic.
I hope it's working.
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: davecb on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 09:29 AM EDT |
He's taking advantage of that kind of conditionality in English, so as to be
able to make statements that his readers consider to be both absolute and true,
but dodge sanctions when they turn out to be false.
--dave
---
davecb@spamcop.net[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
On the contrary, probabilistic statements can be refuted by factual outcome.
Suppose the meteorology station made the prediction that "There is a 75%
chance of rain today" which failed to realize, clearly the prediction is
incorrect. In this regard probabilistic predictions are no different from
deterministic ones.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
Anyone can be wrong occasionally. Few people are right all the time. When some
is wrong most of the time though, then you really have to question why anyone
would listen to him.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
