Someone who "clutters the boards with gibberish."
Take it from a Troll, that is a good definition for "troll".
[closed]
Qualitative methods
(7725 posts) (34 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Apex, without quantitative analysis, how do you *know* that the US is the largest carbon emitter? Maybe the quantity doesn't matter because it is a qualitatively different type of carbon?
Posted 3 years ago # -
without quantitative analysis, how do you *know* that the US is the largest carbon emitter?
Counting carbon emissions is not a quantitative analytical method.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Eight Ball, where are you? We need you to come to the defense of quantitative methods. We're running out of arguments. Can you please help us counter Apex's arguments?
Please.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Obama invoked the Democratic Peace Thesis during his Nobel Peace Prize speech. He stated: “America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens.” Of course, this is not true, but it did not stop President Obama.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Bringing over here the discussion that started on the Copenhagen thread, ILP said the following three things:
-BdM's work is qualitative;
-Qualitative work is inherently transparent;
-BdM's work isn't inherently transparent.ILP, can you explain how these statements can all be true? You've been doing pirouettes around this, but your inability to recognize the contradiction is a serious indictment of the positions you've taken in the past on this board. You already lost credibility regarding anything quantitative when you claimed that 40 degrees F was twice as hot as 20 degrees F. But at least you had some credibility regarding qualitative methods. Please tell us something that would keep that credibility.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Qualitative work is inherently transparent
Where did I write that qualitative analysis is inherently transparent? What I have written is that quant political science research is inherently non-transparent.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thank you for admitting that qual work isn't inherently transparent. You used to say that it was by definition since all the evidence was there "for the reader to see." Now you've moved away from that position. That's called progress, folks.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thank you for admitting that qual work isn't inherently transparent. You used to say that it was by definition since all the evidence was there "for the reader to see." Now you've moved away from that position. That's called progress, folks.
My position has not changed one bit. Qual work can be badly done, and not be transparent. Conversely, the best quant political science work is not transparent, and that is an indictment.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Oh, so now it's the "best" work in quant political science? I'm all ears. What's the best work in quant political science?
It's great that you admit that qual work can be not transparent. That statement is consistent with the lack of transparency found in qual work.
Posted 3 years ago # -
It's great that you admit that qual work can be not transparent. That statement is consistent with the lack of transparency found in qual work.
This is incoherent.
Posted 3 years ago # -
It's great that you admit that qual work can be not transparent. That statement is consistent with the lack of transparency found in qual work.
This is incoherent.
Most of the thread is, so I'd say it's right in line with the overall trend.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yes, because people have nothing better to do than post over 4000 incoherent messages . . . moron.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Reading the posts might help, instead of counting them. I sense a qual/quant divide here. Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. Asshat.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Reading the posts might help, instead of counting them.
Firstly, your blanket statement that this message board is incoherent, without any analysis whatsoever, is insulting and dumb. Secondly, no message board can be sustained for over 4000 posts with a core that is incoherent.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Reading the posts might help, instead of counting them.
Firstly, your blanket statement that this message board is incoherent, without any analysis whatsoever, is insulting and dumb. Secondly, no message board can be sustained for over 4000 posts with a core that is incoherent.
It always makes me smile when you make some claim like this. You are of course making a claim about the behavior of an informational system. A claim that requires that human behavior is in some ways regular (at least in the macro level). That of course means that it can be studied using formal theory and statistical methods. It flies in the face of the claims that human behavior is random and prediction is impossible.
"No message board can be sustained for over 4000 posts with a core that is incoherent." is a prediction about a social system.
You will of course not recognize this or just *black out* in the face if the contradiction and skip to something else.
The truth is that you are the one who has sustained this thread and the 4000 posts is evidence of your desire to keep it alive, and nothing more. When the thread dies you start posting increasingly hostile claims (claims you will back down from after a flurry of 100 posts). Now you seem to have created a set of sock puppets to argue with yourself while trying to draw others in.
Its kinda weird.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I don't believe my statement to be insulting: I trust most of the contributors in this thread to understand that the initial premises of the debate were incoherent, and that garbage-in-garbage-out applies to the thread overall, with a CI of .95.
A small number of exceptions will confirm the rule, sorry if that means you. 'Asshat' is the only bit that stands out as purely insulting, but that was directly just at you, love.
Just get over the fact some people are geeks who like to ramble on for fun on what-could-be-serious matters that amuse them, with only little intention to make sense.
"No message board can be sustained for over 4000 posts with a core that is incoherent." is lots of fun (and a violation of everything we know about message boards since Usenet).
Posted 3 years ago # -
I trust most of the contributors in this thread to understand that the initial premises of the debate were incoherent.
You have no basis for this claim, and that is true of everything you have written so far.
some people are geeks who like to ramble on for fun on what-could-be-serious matters that amuse them, with only little intention to make sense.
You are projecting yourself onto others.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The truth is that you are the one who has sustained this thread and the 4000 posts is evidence of your desire to keep it alive, and nothing more.
This is silly and baseless. A large number of people have participated on this message board -- quant and qual. You are one of them.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Cue Apex...
Posted 3 years ago # -
I trust most of the contributors in this thread to understand that the initial premises of the debate were incoherent.
Anonymous,
Because this discussion is over your head, does not it mean it is incoherent.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I trust most of the contributors in this thread to understand that the initial premises of the debate were incoherent.
You have no basis for this claim, and that is true of everything you have written so far.
That is (doubly) true.
some people are geeks who like to ramble on for fun on what-could-be-serious matters that amuse them, with only little intention to make sense.
You are projecting yourself onto others.
That is also (doubly, since another user formulated the same point differently) true.
But it does not make the statements wrong, nor does it make the reverse statements right.
Short demonstration, since you insist. Has anyone mentioned the two last papers by Gerring and Thomas on the qual/quant divide? No. Their interpretation of the QQD effectively nullifies all previous ones. I therefore assume the debate is starting on wrong premises. Hence it's mostly ****. Some other threads have gone further with less dribble. Biology boards probably produce the same inconsistent ramblings on eugenics and whatnots.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Has anyone mentioned the two last papers by Gerring and Thomas on the qual/quant divide? No.
This proves zero.
What key ideas do they posit that are a must for a discussion of qual/quant methods? This is what is germane.
Some other threads have gone further with less dribble. Biology boards probably produce the same inconsistent ramblings on eugenics and whatnots.
A good example of an irrelevant and mindless assertion.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Must we now add "World Government" to the list of ILP pseudonyms? Oy...
Posted 3 years ago # -
That's exactly what I said of this thread, dude(tte): proving zero, germane, irrelevant and mindless. Now feel free to make a representative sample of posts and show the world that they make significantly more sense than our public love epistles.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Now feel free to make a representative sample of posts and show the world that they make significantly more sense than our public love epistles.
Anonymous,
No one is under any obligation to show you anything. The point is that it is outright stupid for you to blindly challenge the quality of the discourses on this message board.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I love this thread.
Posted 3 years ago # -
http://www.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html
Note how this article on the number of U.S. congressional districts in particular states did not mention one political scientist. Instead, the article appropriately draws on the experts on the shape and content of congressional districts: geographers/demographers.
Posted 3 years ago # -
good job mastering the intricacies of the hyperlinks!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Note how this article on the number of U.S. congressional districts in particular states did not mention one political scientist. Instead, the article appropriately draws on the experts on the shape and content of congressional districts: geographers/demographers.
Did you mean this article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/us/24census.html
Probably not, since Sean Theriault was interviewed for that article, and you claimed that no political scientist was interviewed for the piece. Though if not, then the question is: why didn't you link to this article from the newspaper of record in the US? Because there was a political scientist interviewed in it, and that didn't fit your narrative? Either way, then, this article completely undermines your argument that political scientists aren't viewed as relevant experts on redistricting by the media, the public, etc.
What time is it?
Posted 3 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.