I note this is "political and foreign-policy forecasts." Can you summarize recent forecasts made with the Bruce Bueno de Mesquita model? Was Obama's presidential election and the house turnover to Republicans predicted?
On Nov 15, 3:04 pm, Timothy Monicken <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good points all, but when in the throes of evaluating a model's relative > > impetus, validity, reliability, and areas of applicability, there are also > the specific fields(s) being investigated, & the supposed theoretical > breadth & depth of the individual model's coverage to be considered. For > example, you may be acquainted with the statistical & hierarchical-based > model of *Bruce Bueno de Mesquita*... I'd provide some links, but it is just > as simple for you to "Google." >> While he offers some methodological > touchstones, he chooses *not* to reveal the model's proprietary "breakdown," > as it does evidently help him to earn a significant part of his bread & > butter. So, I guess there is no way to actually peruse his working model. > > Anyway, he freely suggests that the principles upon which he relies are > nothing new, but the ways in which his categorization elements and vector > matrices (emphases placed) are produced is. Oddly, despite the seeming > simplicity (relatively speaking) of his model, its predictive reliability > has no modern rival... I encourage you to check him out... > > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:59 AM, aruzinsky > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > On Oct 27, 10:52 pm, Scott Mayers <[email protected]> wrote: > > >... > > > I am skeptical of today's dependence on induction in physics with > > > contrary and contradictory views on deduction and normal logical > > > method, how and when proponents choose and choose not to use it. > > >... > > > And, where does statistics fit in with your perception of reality? > > > Explanation without prediction is just entertainment. All > > entertainment is frivolous, therefore explanation without prediction > > is frivolous. In prediction, one uses a model. Have you taken a poll > > of physicists to see what percentage believe that their models are > > completely accurate predictors? I am going to guess that you will > > find almost none. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
