Look like same thing as Reinhart/Rogoff Excel error....
Darwin makes an appearance with these people ofc right on cue:
The Imperial team’s response is that it doesn’t matter: they are “aware of some small non-determinisms”, but “this has historically been considered acceptable because of the general stochastic nature of the model”. Note the phrasing here: Imperial know their code has such bugs, but act as if it’s some inherent randomness of the universe, rather than a result of amateur coding. Apparently, in epidemiology, a difference of 80,000 deaths is “a small non-determinism”.
These people are really f_cked up... I feel bad for them... I like this part too:
On a personal level, I’d go further and suggest that all academic epidemiology be defunded. This sort of work is best done by the insurance sector. Insurers employ modellers and data scientists, but also employ managers whose job is to decide whether a model is accurate enough for real world usage and professional software engineers to ensure model software is properly tested, understandable and so on. Academic efforts don’t have these people, and the results speak for themselves.
Everybody who is concerned about the Imperial College model must read this immediately. If true, it is scandalous.https://t.co/Y2SphE228u— David Davis (@DavidDavisMP) May 6, 2020
35 comments:
530,000 deaths - so it was the code that yielded this number, not thin air.
They think the 530k evolved from the apes by random chance mutation....
Or it maybe is a "vast neo virus conspiracy!" ... or its "the myth of our immune system!"... etc..
Twas an Honest Mistake... honest.
Ah the “not competent conspiracy theory” from Matt who’s searching the internet to fuel that conspiracy. Find a tweet from a MP who links to conspiracy sites.
Major Fail.
Typically, when you see some nasty code, you think, "Hmm, this could use some cleaning up" and then immediately your second thought is "I ain't touching it." You break it you own it.
When I see wicked code, I'm impressed.
Reinhart /Roghoff wasn’t only an excel error. They made no difference between countries with fixed currency vs floating.
All stochastic (non-deterministic) analysis include assumptions of conditions like that...
this is the point Fauci was making a few weeks ago...
Fauci saying "wash your hands...dont touch your face" is deterministic...
Trump saying "I hate to break the news to you but you never go bankrupt because you just print the money" is deterministic...
R&R saying "in X% of cases when nations debt to gdp ratio exceeded Y then a default resulted" is non-deterministic...
Just dont do non-deterministic analysis in the first place... to avoid these types of errors..
Somebody resorting to stochastic analysis is a tipoff that they dont know what is going on....
Here is Fauci:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/fauci-defends-lockdown-from-model-criticism
""Well, I mean, there's a certain validity to it, I have been and still am, and will always be somewhat reserved and skeptical about models, because models are only as good as the assumptions that you put into the model," Fauci explained."
Fauci is a Science guy... he knows if we proceed with purpose of creating a vaccine and then inject it it will disrupt the viral function... this is deterministic activity...
Fauci is not either this or that, he clearly says so.
Renhart/Roghoff also cherry picked data. They left out important countries which didn’t support their narrative.
That kind of cherry-picking, e.g. leaving out important information, not considering it is what we can see Matt do here on a regular basis. That is of course anti science.
Liberal art method trains to only include data that supports your theory...
So they didn’t “leave anything out!” ...
Science is discrimininatory...
Here you say “ They left out important countries which didn’t support their narrative. ”
They don’t leave anything out... that’s not the way it works...
They START with the Theory FIRST.. in this case, "nations go default when debt:gdp ratio reaches an unsustainable level" or wtf...
THEN they go out and look at that data FROM NATIONS THAT DEFAULTED...
Why would they include data from nations that DIDNT default you f-ing idiot??????
Hey S, dont ever become a lawyer....
Judge: "Attorney S400 for the defendant, do you have any evidence to present?"
S400: "uhhhh, yes your honor, here ladeies and gentlemen of the jury... uhhhh, the cops didnt find this in their investigation but I was down at the crime scene and here I found a pistol that matches the balistics of the murder weapon and my clients fingerprints are all over it.... I hope you can still find a way to see my client is not guilty..."
LOL!!!!
S,
Im afraid I'm going to have to mark you down to 2.9 now... lost your B....
Look there is still plenty of time in the semester to get this back up to a solid B again if not an A....
Keep plugging...
”Liberal art method trains to only include data that supports your theory.”
Ok you’re devoted to Liberal art method when you cherry pick which you do on a daily basis. Got it.
“Hey S, dont ever become a lawyer....
Judge: "Attorney S400 for the defendant, do you have any evidence to present?"
S400: "uhhhh, yes your honor, here ladeies and gentlemen of the jury... uhhhh, the cops didnt find this in their investigation but I was down at the crime scene and here I found a pistol that matches the balistics of the murder weapon and my clients fingerprints are all over it.... I hope you can still find a way to see my client is not guilty..."
LOL!!!!“
So you’re laughing out loud at your own writing attempts. It might be good at Trump university but in the real world not so good. But don’t stop trying. I’m proud of your attempt.
“Im afraid I'm going to have to mark you down to 2.9 now... lost your B”
I know your slow in learning so I have patience and will repeat this important information:
Giving out Trump grades is a no no in the real world. It’s ok that you do it in your home to dolls and imaginary friends though.
"Because they claim to be scientific in their approach but got caught."
oh you are checkmated AGAIN right here...
Lets go chapter and verse here.... they NEVER claimed to be scientific...
Lets go just post the link to where they claim to be scientific right here below:
They are widely published this shouldnt take a lot of time if true...
Go ahead your move just post the link to where they are claiming to be scientists/scientific:
Go aheead Im waiting:
Just post the link ... go ahead...
http://www.chesscoachonline.com/chess-articles/chess-rules
Reinhart/Rogoffs own words:
“ We identify the major public debt overhang episodes in the advanced economies since the early 1800s”
They selectively omitted data for Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
https://scholar.google.se/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1&qsp=2&q=%22high+public+debt%22+reinhart+and+rogoff&qst=br#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DzV4zUrv1_wUJ
Just pull my finger... go ahead...
Here you’re cherry picking and then adding your own twist:
“where they are claiming to be scientists/scientific”
But I said:
“they claim to be scientific in their approach“
You also said:
“Why would they include data from nations that DIDNT default“
Actually they did include that kind of data too but on a highly selective basis. So your wrong on that point too.
Now go to your room and learn the rules of chess. The chess link is to
“Chess Setup and Rules for Kids & Beginners”
“Just pull my finger... go ahead...”
Haha I fell for that one didn’t I.
The other thing S is that no one has to say they are being scientific, especially in a situation like R&R, that is a given. The real question is what does being scientific mean? What we all really mean when we say we are being scientific is this; whatever claim I am making can be shown to be a logical consequence of the conditions/parameters I am laying out. ( people with Art degrees are the reason for all our problems) The question then becomes one of parameter selection (Art vs science degrees and veracity of claims made by people holding either one ) This is why math is an important part of science, math is the model of logic. Nothing that does not follow the rules of logic will ever be accepted as truth by those professing to be using science. But, there are many things that CAN follow the rules of logic iow there are lots of things that are logically possible, but to be scientifically supported requires testing via experiments with very clear parameters and questions to be answered. All good scientific experiments are answering a few questions. No one experiment can prove everything.
No one making an authoritative claim anywhere has ever claimed , “ What I am saying is completely illogical but I believe it anyway”. They might say, “others can’t see the logic of this but I have the information to show it is logical” Even religious zealots claim to know certain things the rest of us dont that support the logic of their beliefs. No one believes anything they really know is logically impossible, it’s all a matter of having the correct information. This is why narrative control is so important in the proliferation of cults.
Matt seems to think that it’s only “science” when it follows a single methodology. There are many methodologies to answering different questions in a scientific way. The methodology of finding out what compounds are responsible for the changing properties of a pathogen is quite different from the methodology of finding out strategies for limiting the spread of that same pathogen once it has started infecting humans. Both are scientific as long as they are logically consistent. Matt thinks biochemistry is science while biology is art
OK, very quickly because, heck, it's almost noon and I have no idea where the dog is :(
Art and science overlap.
Follow the science, not the scientists.
“ people with Art degrees are the reason for all our problems)”
I’m saying they are not qualified to be working in matters related to our material systems administration/management...
They should be barred from working in anything other than the figurative activity which they are trained in...
“ Art and science overlap.”
No they don’t...
You cant operate our material systems successfully via the Liberal Art method where you have to START with the Theory FIRST... it doesnt work..
Music? ok... Theater? ok... Motion Pictures? ok...
But get these people TFO of our material systems administration... all they do is F them up...
"What we all really mean when we say we are being scientific is this; whatever claim I am making can be shown to be a logical consequence of the conditions/parameters I am laying out."
I have a Science degree and that is NOT what I was trained to do...
You make predictions (hypothesis) and then test them... if they dont work, then you discard them... make a cognitive adjustment/correction and form a NEW hypothesis...
Here is def of Scientific Method there is no "logical consequence" involved, you TEST:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
"It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. "
I would say 'adjustment' (katharis) instead of 'refinement'...
No one operating under this methodology is arguing with anybody else like you have in the dialectic (ie Liberal Art) method... everyone is always in agreement... if the hypothesis returns a false result NOBODY is still advocating for the hypothesis it is immediately discarded...
This is what we are TRAINED to do...
Look at Liberal Art Economics with all the disagreement... then you have a Liberal Art Theory shown to be false by empirical events and the people STILL advocate for their Theory....
Where else does this happen?
N-O-W-H-E-R-E......
Sorry Matt but that is what you are doing, even if you don’t appreciate it. When you have a hypothesis that hypothesis can be formulated mathematically, like those old word problems. If I turn screw A with a torque force of x and the screw is made of material y based on the properties of Y when will this screw break.? And if you can’t put your hypothesis into a form as above it can’t be tested and verified.
What are you making your predictions about? What is the prior knowledge you have that forms the parameters of your hypothesis
The scientific method is first observation and collecting data. The data collection should be tabulated and not just stored in your head, so all ca see it . Next you ask a question about this data/observation, it’s a why question or a how question usually. For some problems you might need more than your eyes, you might need other tools to make measurements of observations. Next you use your data and formulate a hypothesis for the answer to your question. The hypothesis needs to be able to have a logical sequence to it...... if A then B. Finally you come up with a way to test your hypothesis.......... if you can’t do that you need to go back and think harder and find a way to make testable hypothesis, otherwise you ain’t doing science
I’m not going defend economics profession at all but their problems would not be solved by simply changing the way the subject is taught. Even if every economist came out with understanding of CB/Govt accounting and no illusions about running out of money, there are still questions about the proper constraints for authorities to place on our activities. We’d eliminate the screaming that we are out of money but the political impasse would still exist, many citizens would still live trying to deny a decent life to others for all kinds of stupid/selfish/misguided reasons, many in power would still use it unethically etc etc. Understanding we are not out of money would take away only one argument used.
Andrew Maher, mathematician, etc. explains the exponential function!
https://youtu.be/naj3MeL9YKw
Post a Comment