You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #33: Kathy, your arguments are weak [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. Kathy, your arguments are weak
Sorry to be the one (well, among the few) to break it to you, but your colleagues are letting you down.

If you really want to play Credentials Smackdown -- if you really want to argue that your MA in mathematics trumps my Ph.D. in political science when we are talking about polling data -- then I would suggest that Fritz Scheuren has to be the walkover winner, with his Ph.D. in statistics (dissertation on "Topics in Multivariate Finite Population Sampling and Analysis") and everything he has done since. You should be worried about this. You should worry a bit less about whether my mind is open enough, and a bit more about whether yours is, IMHO. I can certainly imagine the president of the American Statistical Association being wrong, but it seems like a Big Stretch to suppose that he isn't qualified to do data analysis.

Yes, you argue that the analysis is moot because of faulty logic. Do you really want to argue that ESI's argument is bunk because "showing one valid counterexample... is sufficient to disprove any inference"? OK, then I am here to tell you that smoking doesn't cause cancer, 'coz just look at all the people who haven't died from smoking! My counterexamples aren't even hypothetical! Will it be clearer if I add some symbolic logic notation?

eomer actually had a serious discussion with Febble and me about substance, and I worked to incorporate his insights into my response to you. I think you should read it again, and then get back to the actual debate.

You are losing this argument, messily. Here is part of the mess, from your latest PDF response:
Lindeman and Liddle both admitted in emails to me that, on the Democratic Underground (DU), they asked moderators to remove my posts and even managed to freeze my thread entitled "The ESI/Mitofsky analysis is Illogical Bunk" because they dislike the words "bunk" and "illogical". Although I am not a Democratic Party member, I sometimes post at DU because I am asked by some of its members to address inaccuracies posted there by ODell, Lindeman and Liddle.

OK, let's fact-check this, briefly. Was there ever a thread entitled "The ESI/Mitofsky analysis is Illogical Bunk"? Does anyone here think that I or anyone else got a thread frozen on the grounds that I/we dislike the words "bunk" and "illogical"? Does anyone suppose that I "admitted" such a thing? (I do "admit" that I have alerted on some of your posts.) Does anyone think that your posts here are limited to the purpose of addressing inaccuracies posted by O'Dell, Lindeman and Liddle? (It's a matter of record, by the way, that you joined DU in December 2004, Febble joined in April 2005, and I joined in May.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC