Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election has begun. Ask questions, read slogans, and (un)endorse candidates!

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Talk:Nate Silver

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Sabermetrics[edit]

Does anybody else think it's really sad that there's an entire field of statistics dedicated to optimizing baseball teams?--"Shut up, Brx." 04:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No. --Revolverman (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No. Scarlet A.pngmoralModerator 15:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Probably, but not me.Hydrogen and Time (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Silver hires Roger Pielke Jr.[edit]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/19/3415984/nate-silver-science-writer-ignores-data/ --ZooGuard (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree to having a section on the new 538 - specifically on how much of a dud it is. It's something when the blogging model you established under New York Times is in better shape without you, and of higher-quality than your independent explanatory journalism project. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Young Turks accuse Silver of being biased. Present zero evidence[edit]

Have a look at this video where the Young Turks accuse Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight of being biased without offering even a hint of evidence. What do you think? 95.90.213.140 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty biased view of that video you're presenting. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:14, 13 May 42016 AQD (UTC)
How so? Usually they prove their point via direct quotes. They do not directly quote Silver. At all. 95.90.213.140 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
How so? Are you implying I need to present evidence? ;) You're not wrong, though, all he's giving in the video is a bunch of vague references to something people are expected to know about. Perhaps they already mentioned it in earlier videos? In this more recent video Cenk brings up a tweet by Silver. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 42016 AQD (UTC)
I think part of the problem comes from a fundamental misunderstanding what Silver's expertise consists in. Silver is not a polling expert. He is a math expert. And polling is only one thing he factors into his math. Everybody with a bit experience in social sciences will tell you that some base data is garbage. Hence you have to decide which ones to take and which ones to ignore. Especially if you only have a small amount of data to begin with. This he is - at least from his own viewpoint - not wrong to exclude some polls that produce hardly credible results... 95.90.213.140 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that was what Cenk was trying to say or at least has said previously which is that Silver has an implicit bias which causes him to favor certain polling data over others.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 16:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
What kind of surprises me is how many anti-Trump Democrats seem set on dismissing the possibility of Trump winning the election rather than exaggerating said possibility to scare people into voting against him. Seems pretty counterintuitive, strategically at least. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)