Markk wrote:… finding a source, narrative, or specific data, and quoting it, or re-organizing it, to make it fit ones ideology or agenda. More specifically it is taking numbers and statistics and making it work in "your" favor. ...
vs
EAllusion wrote:… data dredging to get mathematically correct, but misleading conclusions of statistical significance. ...
its like watching the special Olympics.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Markk wrote:… finding a source, narrative, or specific data, and quoting it, or re-organizing it, to make it fit ones ideology or agenda. More specifically it is taking numbers and statistics and making it work in "your" favor. ...
vs
EAllusion wrote:… data dredging to get mathematically correct, but misleading conclusions of statistical significance. ...
its like watching the special Olympics.
P-hacking is a specific type of misleading with numbers to support a conclusion, not just the general concept of misleading with numbers. Markk already has overgeneralized it in his specific understanding, then he generalizes it further to the idea of using google to find sources that can be used misleadingly to support a position. That's just wrong. What he's trying to describe is normally called quote-mining and cherry-picking respectively. He is accusing honor of cherry-picking with the aid of google.
Apparently he heard about p-hacking from somewhere, sorta got what was going on, and decided to redefine it and import it into situations where his use makes no sense to people who know what the term actually refers to means.
What he's doing is the equivalent of someone who learned the name of one logical fallacy, then goes around accusing people of that specific logical fallacy as a stand-in for saying they're wrong. That kind of thing confuses people who actually understand what the logical fallacy refers to.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
I used to think Markk avoided calls for references because he was just trolling. Threads about evolution in particular come to mind, but it's a subject that is prone to people throwing up walls rather than engaging points. But based on this thread, I've come to wonder if he really has a fundamental misconception when it comes to the mechanisms by which evidence is used to inform, support, and possibly reshape views? It's still possible he's just trolling but there are aspects of what he said above as well as how he tried to mirror what he called p-hacking that reminds me of a child pretending at behavior they observe in adults. It has the form but lacks the underlying comprehension.
It would be wonderful to see Markk use evidence in an appropriate way to support an argument.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Markk wrote:In the context I am using it, it is simply surfing the net, and finding a source, narrative, or specific data, and quoting it, or re-organizing it, to make it fit ones ideology or agenda.
More specifically it is taking numbers and statistics and making it work in "your" favor. You can call it anything you like, but for me...P-hacking works well.
It is what we do here...we all do it. Yet you know that, and you were just asking a leading question after you surfed the net on "P hacking" to look for a argument, because I did not use the term in the purest sense
You do it, in the context I put it in, maybe more than anyone here, I don't know who you think you are fooling, just like with your trolling question.
That's not what P-hacking is. I asked because you saying you can p-hack too, as if p-hacking had just occurred, suggested you didn't know what p-hacking was.
P-hacking refers to data dredging to get mathematically correct, but misleading conclusions of statistical significance. You're hacking p-values, in other words. Hence the name. Your specific definition doesn't' quite get it either. The idea that this notion could be used to refer to finding sources that can be construed to agree with an argument is severely abusing the concept.
That I support my assertions with sources leading you to accuse me of "p-hacking" in your confused version of what the term means is essentially a compliment.
All you're doing is looking for something to avoid the points made...it is what you do. I think you know by the conversation what the context was...so whatever...at this point like most always when the agenda and talking points are uncovered, the argument is about the person.
Honer is now using Petersonese “if Markk only used evidence”...LOL...it is embarrassing. Maybe I should counter...”what would a sword ahh err evidence look like.” Classic denial.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Markk wrote:All your doing is looking for something to avoid the points made...it is what you do. I think you know by the conversation what the context was...so whatever...at this point like most always when the agenda and talking points are uncovered, the argument is about the person.
Honer is now using Petersonese “if Markk only used evidence”...LOL...it is embarrassing. Maybe I should counter...”what would a sword ahh err evidence look like.” Classic denial.
I wasn't engaging your argument Markk. I just noticed you accused honor of p-hacking, but when I looked through honor's posts there was nothing that was even in the ballpark of p-hacking. When I asked you about it, I later learned that you don't know what the term means and as a result have taken it to be inclusive of cherry-picking, which is what you are actually accusing honor of.
Do you know what a p-value is? Are you familiar with null hypothesis significance testing? P-hacking is when you manipulate data sets or experiment designs to have statistically significant findings within a given p-value to support illicit conclusions. P-hacking biases false positives. It can be done accidentally or maliciously. It's one type of bias you should be aware of that exists in scientific literature.
To generalize this to any form of misleading with statistics is already abusing the term, but whatever. To generalize it to the idea of "selectively presenting information to illicitly support a conclusion" is just bonkers. It's going to confuse readers who understand what the term means. I was confused when I read your post. Hence my reply.
Markk wrote:All your doing is looking for something to avoid the points made...it is what you do. I think you know by the conversation what the context was...so whatever...at this point like most always when the agenda and talking points are uncovered, the argument is about the person.
Honer is now using Petersonese “if Markk only used evidence”...LOL...it is embarrassing. Maybe I should counter...”what would a sword ahh err evidence look like.” Classic denial.
I wasn't engaging your argument Markk. I just noticed you accused honor of p-hacking, but when I looked through honor's posts there was nothing that was even in the ballpark of p-hacking. When I asked you about it, I later learned that you don't know what the term means and as a result have taken it to be inclusive of cherry-picking, which is what you are actually accusing honor of.
Do you know what a p-value is? Are you familiar with null hypothesis significance testing? P-hacking is when you manipulate data sets or experiment designs to have statistically significant findings within a given p-value to support illicit conclusions. P-hacking biases false positives. It can be done accidentally or maliciously. It's one type of bias you should be aware of that exists in scientific literature.
To generalize this to any form of misleading with statistics is already abusing the term, but whatever. To generalize it to the idea of "selectively presenting information to illicitly support a conclusion" is just bonkers. It's going to confuse readers who understand what the term means. I was confused when I read your post. Hence my reply.
Blah Blah Blah.....
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Evidence would look like numbers of asylum seekers being processed per day being granted access into the States to await their hearings. The claim was that it's easy and thousands a day are being let in. That sounds quantifiable as far as claims go.
My issue is with you saying it's easy to get in. This, despite the huge and growing number of asylum seekers being kept out of the country in Mexico. With the implimentation and courts upholding the MPPs, it's even less likely an immigrant will ever do more than visit a courthouse in the US, and that is unlikely to happen within months of arriving at the border.
Nothing you've shared supports the erroneous claim it's easy for asylum seekers to get in. The Trump administration has been keen to overturn the so called catch and release policies of the Obama admin which led to the original problem with forced separations and now doing everything possible to delay or prevent asylum seekers from being able to get an interview to start the process.
It seems your opinion is a combination of some facts about the process combined with conservative talk radio fear lingering points and your nephews anecdotes about what it takes to get past the initial assessment to begin interviews that determine if a candidate will in fact be allowed in to await a hearing.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
