I want to advert briefly to another one, one of my pet whipping topics: experts, a whole large diverse category of pollster experts and their lackeys everywhere.
What did they have to do with the election? The media supposedly listens to them. What if a given media outlet is the quarterback of a team, or teams, of pollsters and their subordinate social science lackeys? what then?
Why were they so wrong, you may ask? Not enough data? Not enough enlightened scientific technique or methodology? Not enough what?
If they influence elections, rather than merely gauge results, then one can ask: Not enough biased quarterbacking to tip the election the way their evidence indicated? What?
Call it another slam at junk science, but why not take another swing at this pinata?
Many people blame the established media, but they in turn claimed to rely on these others. Why? How?
If Facebook is more to blame for the result, as some now assert, eg BBC pundit, then why wasn't this fact, itself, determined by staticians and pollsters? Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment