Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jason Brain's avatar

Just anecdotally as a former grad student at Harfraud, data contrivance and model "overfitting" is ubiquitous, especially in anything "social science" oriented. I can't tell you how many graduate theses I saw that were fundamentally verificationist in methodology: only supporting data is cited (or sorted) to verify a sloppy thesis. Only falsifiable hypotheses are scientifically valid (which is not to say they are true however! Just feasibly testable.) But postmodern verificationist thesis "research" (as it's always called) is just ideologically driven garbage. Data is almost like, an aesthetic at this point – the fetish of graphical modeling and crap; Mattias Desmet hits this nail on the head in his book The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Both academia and corporations are obsessed with the aesthetic of data; big surprise. When so much has been cleverly rationalized with sophisticated modeling nowadays then you have to trust your nose: if it smells like bullshit, it probably is. The 21st century has to be navigated by scent way more than I'd like!

Expand full comment
Daniel Hall's avatar

"... what they show is only a correlation, not a causal relationship.

"... this leads to a correlation in the data—without any causal effect from the election of black representatives.

This is very basic. For many people who work with data, such considerations about possible alternative hypotheses are the first thing we think about. But for some reason it was not considered in the paper, which means that the conclusion it makes about causality is invalid."

BINGO: The Left assumes cause that fits their view & vision without considering perfectly logical alternatives. Thomas Sowell (& others) have repeatedly shown & specifically debunked that the Left assumes correlation is cause.

Expand full comment
105 more comments...

No posts