See, even attempts to produce a marginal raise of sense in this thread are bound to fail.
Qualitative methods(7725 posts) (34 voices)
Sorry about the wrong link. (I was referring to the above article.) In any event, Theriault's quote is not on anything related to demography nor on anything substantively in regards to congressional districts:
“It means a Republican state [Texas] becomes bigger and a little less Republican,” said Sean Theriault, a professor of government at the University of Texas.
"In any event, Theriault's quote is not on anything related to demography nor on anything substantively in regards to congressional districts"
a) First, that wasn't your claim. Your claim was that "this article on the number of U.S. congressional districts in particular states did not mention one political scientist.".
b) if Theriault was quoted, he was used for background and not just for the specific mention, which means that the contribution was substantive. Note the context in which the quote was placed. The previous paragraph was about the distribution of growth in specfic districts, followed by the lead on the impact of growth on those districts.
c) If, as was claimed earlier, questions about redistricting do not require poli sci to understand, then a question/response about the ideological make-up of the population of the districts must be one of demography. But since the poli sci quote speaks to ideology, it invalidates your claim that the quote wasn't on "anything related to demography". If, on the other hand, questions of ideology ARE poli sci, then the fact that a poli sci prof was consulted to discuss how the ideological leanings of new populations will interact with the gain of seats in Texas, then poli sci seems necessary to understanding the implications of reapportionment and redistricting, thus invalidating the previous point. Either way, you are wrong...again.
you may want to contact the mods, because someone named World Government is sullying your good name by pretending to be you. Looking at his posts, he has contributed to posts on USC, Environment/policy jobs, the Copenhagen conference, and qualitative methods. He's clearly trying to emulate you since those are the topics for which you have been known to contribute many posts. I thought I'd give you a head's up. Also, you may want to keep an eye on Eight Ball. For some reason, he's also someone who tries to follow you around here, posting on environment and qualitative methods...
In any case, I look forward to your response in this debate, Apex.
In the meantime, I'll second ^'s thoughtful post. Clearly S.T's quote speaks to the ideological make up of districts, and how this is likely to change due to redistricting. Note the sentence immediately preceding his quote: "Much of the growth has been in conservative suburban districts around Dallas and Houston, but political scientists believe that many of the newcomers will lean liberal." This is explicitly about migration (i.e., "newcomers" to the state) and ideology (i.e., "lean liberal").
But what I'm wondering is what sort of "evidence" do you need to start thinking that political scientists (and quantitative ones) have something to contribute to the public (and academic) debate on redistricting? So far, you have refused to revise your claim that political science is irrelevant to that debate, even after being shown the following:
-many academics with political science Ph.D.s contribute to this debate;
-many academics who are affiliated with political science departments, either as professors, researchers, or grad students contribute to this debate;
-many articles contributing to this debate have been published in political science journals;
-many political scientists have testified in congressional hearings and court cases, provided amicus briefs, etc., on the topic of redistricting;
-the New York Times has interviewed a political scientist for its most recent article on redistricting.
Presumably, you are making a falsifiable claim about the role of political scientists in understanding issues of redistricting. What would it take to falsify your claims?
then poli sci seems necessary to understanding the implications of reapportionment and redistricting
many academics with political science Ph.D.s contribute to this debate
many articles contributing to this debate have been published in political science journals
Political scientists (specifically, IR and Middle East specialists) have been quoted in regards, and published on, the Iranian nuclear program, and its geopolitical implications. Does this mean these political scientists are experts in nuclear power, nuclear weapons, etc.?
Huh? So you're saying that political scientists may be experts in the politics of redistricting, its implications (effects), but they are not experts on redistricting? What the hell are you talking about?
its implications (effects), but they are not experts on redistricting?
In terms of the mechanics of redistricting, by training, no.
But wait a minute. If so, why did you bring up this (or any) NYT article? What point were you trying to prove?
If your position is that political scientists are not experts on redistricting, and that even if they are quoted in an article that still doesn't make them experts, then surely the fact that they are not (or in this case are) quoted in the NYT isn't dispositive to your case, now is it? So why bring up that article?
So you thought the article didn't quote a political scientist, and you bring it up to prove a point, i.e., that "experts" are not political scientists, but rather geographers and demographers are.
Then, we point out that no, the article did quote a political scientist, and your response is that it doesn't matter, because political scientists aren't experts.
So why bring up the article? How does it help your position, which cannot be falsified by the presence (or absence) of a political scientist's quote in the article? Really puzzling.
Finally, one more thing. Michael McDonald is a political scientist. There's no doubt about that. He has had a direct hand on the drawing of districts in AZ. There's also no doubt about that (if you follow redistricting debates, you would know). Does that mean that a) he's not really a political scientist, or that b) he must not have had a real hand in redistricting in AZ? It's one or the other, or c) you're wrong. Which one is it?
oooh, nice shift there. I almost didn't notice that one. So, what you are saying is that there may be political scientists who are experts, but not "by training." Nice one, very clever...:)
what you are saying is that there may be political scientists who are experts, but not "by training." Nice one, very clever...:)
I do not understand your critique. I have a Ph.D. in political science. If I learn the detailed specifics of cancer treatments (let us say that my area is health policy), does that mean that political scientists are experts in cancer?
Wow, you keep changing the terms of the debate.
What is now your final, ultimate, claim regarding political scientists and redistricting? I have no idea anymore.
Also, why did you bring the NYT article if, regardless of the presence of a quote by a political scientist, you were going to claim that experts are demographers and geographers? Were you just bringing it up as a rhetorical strategy (i.e., the NYT doesn't interview a political scientist, therefore I must be right!!)? You have to admit that it kinda blew up in your face, no? lol
Let's look at it another way. You claim that demographers and geographers, not political scientists, are experts in redistricting. You bring up a NYT article to bolster that claim, since it included quotes from the former, but not the latter (or so you thought). Right?
Well, if it turns out that the latter are interviewed, and you didn't use that evidence to change your claim. Doesn't that tell us that the fact that demographers were interviewed is also irrelevant to your claim (since, by your own logic, the fact that someone is interviewed is in no way an indication of expertise)?
I'd also like to hear from Apex, who posted the article to begin with. It's the holidays, so maybe it will take a few days to respond.
if it turns out that the latter are interviewed, and you didn't use that evidence to change your claim. Doesn't that tell us that the fact that demographers were interviewed is also irrelevant to your claim (since, by your own logic, the fact that someone is interviewed is in no way an indication of expertise)?
Your position is becoming increasingly incoherent (now I am sounding like the ILP [apex?]). A political scientist was quoted in the above redistricting article in the same that a political scientist would be quoted on the implications of Iran's nuclear program, not as an expert on redistricting matters (i.e., demography/geography) but on the implications of demography changes (i.e., redistricting).
World Government, you posted earlier the following "Sorry about the wrong link."
But the wrong link was posted by Apex.
That was meant as a joke -- apparently a bad one. I have been accused of being the ILP so many times that I thought I would jokingly adopt his/her persona.
Actually you've never been accused of being Apex (ILP) until you posted that. Unless I missed something. So that's why I thought it was a little puzzling.
Unless you're also Eight Ball, which would explain things quite a bit. I just though it was bizarre that you "knew" which article Apex posted.
Now, I know--cue Apex who will chime in within a few days saying he's not you, etc. You guys used to post one after the other, but now at least you give it a few days. That's really good. Pretty clever.
Actually you've never been accused of being Apex (ILP) until you posted that.
I am referring to when the boards were anonymous. In any event, I have not noticed Eight Ball much, but I have seen apex a bit -- who I assume is the original ILP.
Oh I see. Well that was a great joke then, wasn't it? Given the anonimity of the old board and all.
Thing is, the two (three?) of you keep posting under the same threads, and all have a way of writing that's a little off (generally trying to use the same "big" words when they don't really fit, etc.). Not a big deal, probably just a really big coincidence
generally trying to use the same "big" words
Many, many people employee college level vocabularies, even if most of the people in your circle do not.
I thought World Government's apology was a little odd, but I like him/her so I did not want to say anything.
WG, people in my circle use an appropriate college-level vocabulary. That's probably where the difference lies.
Apex, finally we hear from you. Thank you for clearing things up. Now if you could provide us with your thoughts on the substantive issue at hand, that would be quite helpful.
Are you with WG that Sean Theriault isn't an expert on redistricting?
people in my circle use an appropriate college-level vocabulary
Then maybe the issue is just your lack of language skills.
Here is another article in which Sean Theriault is quoted. In this instance, he is speaking as an expert and not just a prop -- as he was used in the earlier article. I trust all can see the difference.
“More and more people have been coming out,” said Sean Theriault, a political scientist at the University of Texas who tracks gay politics.
Just face it, qual sucks big time. Its way out of date and will vanish from political science this century.
So suck it apex (or should I call you World Government or Eight Ball today?)
Just face it, qual sucks big time.
I am surprised your parents let someone your age use the computer unsupervised. Your crankiness tells us you need a nap.
^You logged in using the wrong name again. You need to pay attention to which alias you're using before posting more ****.
^I do not see what you are saying. I really think you need that nap, and maybe your diapers changed as well.
World Government, you really have these quants believing we are the same person. That's hilarious. I guess that is part of the fun having to register.
I honestly did not think this thread could reach higher on the Beckett Ladder of Absurdity but World Government has genuine talent in nonsensemaking.
This topic has been closed to new replies.