LogFAQs > #934388268

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I sort of see corriks point here. Nate Silvers stuff isnt quite like a fire emblem chance to hit because FEs attacks are repeatable so you can see over time that there actually was that 1% chance or whatever, but the election just happens once so its impossible to prove that running the election 100 times would result in 99 trump losses or whatever the actual prediction was

so silvers predictions look like making a bet you cant technically lose no matter the outcome even if the outcome is the one he said was incredibly unlikely. If the things he says are less likely to happen consistently end up happening it casts some doubt on the process by which hes making these predictions (I have no idea how often this is the case for him though)

I mean yeah there are fundamental limits on being able to tell if you forecast a one time event correctly. I don't think that's a reason to conclude that it's fundamentally unknowable and that we can't obtain some information out of polls.

---

Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge!