Nate Silver is Not a Witch… He’s You.

[sheshe2]

Nate Silver is Not a Witch… He’s You.

Nov 5 2012 in Election 2012, Kick Ass, Politics, Uncategorized by Imani Gandy (ABL)

I’m two glasses into a bottle of single malt, y’all, and in no position to be blogging about anything, but I wanted to share a couple things with you.

One: Nate Silver — the most hated man on the right, places President Obama’s reelection chances at 92%. This is a goddamn lie, obvs, because math is for hippies.

Two: The fact that someone created this website — isnatesilverawitch.com — restores my faith in humanity.

That is all.

Now Click on to this link, copying it would not have done it justice!
http://isnatesilverawitch.com/




http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2012/11/05/nate-silver-is-not-a-witch-hes-you/

[MannyGoldstein]

1. But I'm a witch

So how can Nate...

Meh, I'll just hit the scotch and all will make sense.

[RebelOne]

3. The maie version of witch is warlock. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

5. But everyone knows I'm a paid Republican shill

I'm actually Christine O'Donnell.

[siligut]

2. The superstitious right

Seriously? There were people saying he is a witch?

[sheshe2]

6. I don't know about that.

This is more of a stick in your ear to the Journalist's.

Did you follow that link. It was interesting.

The site was posted by: Epistemology...meaning: It questions what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the possible extent a given subject or entity can be known.

Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification.

When we talk about the epistemology of journalism, it all eventually ties into objectivity. The journalistic norm of objectivity is more than just a careful neutrality or attempt to appear unbiased; for journalists, it’s the grounds on which they claim the authority to describe reality to us. And the authority of objectivity is rooted in a particular process.

That process is very roughly this: Journalists get access to privileged information from official sources, then evaluate, filter, and order it through the rather ineffable quality alternatively known as “news judgment,” “news sense,” or “savvy.” This norm of objectivity is how political journalists say to the public (and to themselves), “This is why you can trust what we say we know — because we found it out through this process.” (This is far from a new observation – there are decades of sociological research on this.)

Silver’s process — his epistemology — is almost exactly the opposite of this:

Where political journalists’ information is privileged, his is public, coming from poll results that all the rest of us see, too.

Where political journalists’ information is evaluated through a subjective and nebulous professional/cultural sense of judgment, his evaluation is systematic and scientifically based. It involves judgment, too, but because it’s based in a scientific process, we can trace how he applied that judgment to reach his conclusions.

Both of those different ways of knowing inevitably result in different types of conclusions. Silver’s conclusions are at once much more specific and much less certain than those

http://markcoddington.com/2012/10/31/nate-silver-journalism-politics-knowledge-epistemology/

[siligut]

7. I didn't click on the last link

I was commenting on the comment that the website was created with that URL.

[sheshe2]

8. Well they probably were calling all sorts of names....

doesn't matter though. He was right and they all were so very wrong!

[MFM008]

4. why oh why Nate

WHY couldnt you be right about the Seahawks in the superbowl like you said. wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....oh well.