Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'm not talking about the most politically practical method - which may be some variation of the democratic process we have today, and I'm also not talking about a tactical method like the scientific method, because that begs the question of whose application of it you trust. What is the best way, if we ignore all issues of implementation, for a group of people to come to a decision on who is right?

Some potential candidates:

Democratic vote (probably pretty awful)
Expert vote (how broadly do we determine what an expert is?)
Betting market
Vote with some sort of intellectual or expertise based cutoff
Panel of professional judges
Vote weighted by some measure of expertise or intelligent
etc.

Id say betting market. Bets are very subjective and bets to profit are movements. The more people on whatever, holds momentum. Brexit is a good example.

Betting markets are usually pretty reliable. It does filter out bluffers, .i.e. lots of people who boast about how Trump is secretly winning suspiciously aren't putting money on it.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Betting markets are usually pretty reliable. It does filter out bluffers, .i.e. lots of people who boast about how Trump is secretly winning suspiciously aren't putting money on it.

But with the example you are using here, the amount of people betting wouldn't really show either side was right. It ultimately doesn't actually tell us who is winning, it just tells us who is full of shit.

Ive put money on it. America has a lot of gambling bans, as well as gambling corruption in Atlanta and Vegas. Dont think its a viable point.

Originally posted by Surtur
But with the example you are using here, the amount of people betting wouldn't really show either side was right.

It correlates with who is right about who will win. The bet isn't on who would make a better candidate.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
It correlates with who is right about who will win. The bet isn't on who would make a better candidate.

I never said it was on who would make a better candidate. I'm saying there is no way to truly know who is right about who will win until someone wins.

From your betting thing, all you'd accomplish is finding out who people *believe* will truly win. That tells us how people feel, but your post didn't seem like it was out to find out how people truly feel about a situation.

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said it was on who would make a better candidate. I'm saying there is no way to truly know who is right about who will win until someone wins.

From your betting thing, all you'd accomplish is finding out who people *believe* will truly win.

I don't see what you're getting at. No, it isn't as predictive as hindsight, and we have to wait until we can verify its prognostications - that doesn't mean it isn't a useful guess. That's like saying meteorology is useless because we don't know if its predictions work out until after the predicted time has passed...

Okay I guess I misunderstood, because it almost seemed like in a nutshell you were asking us how we figure out whose opinion is more valid.

Betting is pretty much bandwagoning.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay I guess I misunderstood, because it almost seemed like in a nutshell you were asking us how we figure out whose opinion is more valid.

Yeah, and betting markets can be helpful in that. Just saying to wait until hindsight kicks in doesn't always work.

Originally posted by Its2016
Betting is pretty much bandwagoning.

Do you know why I don't trust democratic votes?

I never said wait until it kicks in, all I'm saying is there is no way to be sure who will win until someone wins. You say you want truth, but the truth is there is simply no truth right now in saying Hilary will win. There is no truth in saying Trump will win. These are opinions.

I didn't say any of the methods could make you 100% sure. You can't be 100% sure that the moon isn't made out of cheese.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Yeah, and betting markets can be helpful in that. Just saying to wait until hindsight kicks in doesn't always work.



Do you know why I don't trust democratic votes? No. Spill.

A lot of people are stupid.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I didn't say any of the methods could make you 100% sure. You can't be 100% sure that the moon isn't made out of cheese.

What I'm saying is I don't think we can even be 75% sure who will win.

I actually don't know about that. I think that betting markets and well designed polling aggregates like those by Wang and Silver are right more than 75% of the time.

So? If this election has told us anything, its that the United States of America and most of the world is incredibly dumb.

100 is the average iq. Ive spoken to people with 100 iqs. Average is a good description. Half the people, white priveleged people, are stupider than that.

"People are ****ing dumb" - George Carlin

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I actually don't know about that. I think that betting markets and well designed polling aggregates like those by Wang and Silver are right more than 75% of the time. Silver has an appauling anti Trump record since the primaries. He kept predicting Trump to lose. I think he hates Trump.

But it's going down a slippery slope if people want to try to present their opinions as facts.

May I ask what lead you to want to create this topic?

Originally posted by Its2016
So? If this election has told us anything, its that the United States of America and most of the world is incredibly dumb.

100 is the average iq. Ive spoken to people with 100 iqs. Average is a good description. Half the people, white priveleged people, are stupider than that.

"People are ****ing dumb" - George Carlin

I know, that's my point.

Originally posted by Its2016
Silver has an appauling anti Trump record since the primaries. He kept predicting Trump to lose. I think he hates Trump.

But he's probably right.

Originally posted by Surtur
But it's going down a slippery slope if people want to try to present their opinions as facts.


Who is going to win the election is an objective question, it's just difficult to answer.



I've thought about this before. I'm also astounded by how many stupid people have outed themselves this election cycle, and it really shakes my faith in democracy.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
But he's probably right. But the Trump factor actually destroys his credibility.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I know, that's my point. So, stupidity isnt true? Im not sure what the conclusion is.

Who will win ultimately comes down to opinion right now. We can't present it as fact. So I feel like you're asking for something that isn't truly possible.

You said the one guy is probably right that Trump will lose. Well okay, but that still isn't the truth though..no matter how many times in the past he has been right.

Originally posted by Its2016
But the Trump factor actually destroys his credibility.


It really doesn't. His model actually understates Hillary's probability of winning next to, say, Wang's at Princeton.



The initial question was whether democracy was effective at arriving at the truth.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
It really doesn't. His model actually understates Hillary's probability of winning next to, say, Wang's at Princeton.



The initial question was whether democracy was effective at arriving at the truth. Nate has constantly been anti Trump into not surviving at all. Hes won the nominee and not suffered in the polls at all. Even pussygate hasnt really harmed him so much.

What do you define as truth? And how does this relate to Trump and the presidential race?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
The initial question was whether democracy was effective at arriving at the truth.

If you want to put it like this then no I don't think it is. I think the entire point of democracy is the truth is irrelevant, what is perceived as the truth matters more.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
What is the best way, if we ignore all issues of implementation, for a group of people to come to a decision on who is right? About who is right, or how about who people prefer?

Read peoples emails.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
About who is right, or how about who people prefer?

Who is right. But often it's who is right about who people prefer (.i.e. predicting election winners).

Some people are to dumb to see what is right in front of their eyes, they can't comprehend it, so they turn away and look for a shiny object in the room.

Originally posted by Its2016
Nate has constantly been anti Trump into not surviving at all. Hes won the nominee and not suffered in the polls at all. Even pussygate hasnt really harmed him so much.


What polls have you been looking at? Trump has collapsed in the polls following the video by all the polls conducted in Reality.



An objectively testable question, like "who will win X election" or "will global temperatures rise by at least Y degrees".

Originally posted by The Ellimist
What polls have you been looking at? Trump has collapsed in the polls following the video by all the polls conducted in Reality.



An objectively testable question, like "who will win X election" or "will global temperatures rise by at least Y degrees".
Go ahead and explain how the polls work before you believe in them.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
What polls have you been looking at? Trump has collapsed in the polls following the video by all the polls conducted in Reality.



An objectively testable question, like "who will win X election" or "will global temperatures rise by at least Y degrees". none. I dont trust em.

Originally posted by Its2016
none. I dont trust em.

So what do you trust? Your gut? Did your gut also tell you Romney was going to win? Was your gut able to predict 49 (or was it 50?) out of the 50 states in that election, like Silver's oh-so-liberal concept of statistics did?

Is that all you care about, who is going to win, not who is a corrupt piece of shit.

As a Hillary supporter you condone her campaign trashing Mexicans, blacks, muslims now?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
So what do you trust? Your gut? Did your gut also tell you Romney was going to win? Was your gut able to predict 49 (or was it 50?) out of the 50 states in that election, like Silver's oh-so-liberal concept of statistics did? My gut told me Obama would win almost all the states he did in 08. Iirc, I got every state right except Florida, which I deemed a tossup. For now i have close to no idea.

I will say Trump will likely win FL, NV, OH and atleast one vote from Maine. He will win AZ, NC and every state below it, VA is a tossup, but is likely Hill territory. CO and NH are also tossups.

This puts both candidates 250-290

Originally posted by Its2016
My gut told me Obama would win almost all the states he did in 08. Iirc, I got every state right except Florida, which I deemed a tossup. For now i have close to no idea.

I will say Trump will likely win FL, NV, OH and atleast one vote from Maine. He will win AZ, NC and every state below it, VA is a tossup, but is likely Hill territory. CO and NH are also tossups.

This puts both candidates 250-290

And you arrived at this conclusion without looking at the polls?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
And you arrived at this conclusion without looking at the polls? Ive looked into what are considered swing states and historical trends. I dont go on fivethirtyeight if thats what you mean. Ive spent, in all honesty, very little attention to the polls.

It's good to see this has turned into another argument about the election.


Originally posted by The Ellimist
Who is right. But often it's who is right about who people prefer (.i.e. predicting election winners). If this is a matter of word choice, it'll need clarification/course correction. But if "who is right" can be switched out with "what is factually correct" or "what is objectively true", then there is already a method of determination: the scientific method.

Throwing the "who" in there and making it about opinions just makes it... about opinions.

What difference does it make, Clinton and Podesta are in bed with Russia.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's good to see this has turned into another argument about the election.


If this is a matter of word choice, it'll need clarification/course correction. But if "who is right" can be switched out with "what is factually correct" or "what is objectively true", then there is already a method of determination: the scientific method.

Throwing the "who" in there and making it about opinions just makes it... about opinions. This is where democracy or law come in. Neither are perfect.

I wonder how Ellimist feels about dictorial truths or other forms of aristocratic or corrupt truths.

Breitbart is crushing the internet. 200,000,000 Pageviews in Month; 11.5M in Single Day

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/13/breitbart-news-received-200-million-pageviews-september/

Landslide coming.

Almost every message being projected outward from her campaign is negative, and a candidate with high distrust ratings should not be doing this, and my phone has been ringing and my email box has been full with Democrats who like me who support her but who, like me, are appalled and losing confidence. I have never seen anything like this. This campaign is devoid of positive messages, uplifting appeal, and coherent rationale. And bluntly, it is getting to the point where every word she utters, there are more young people and first time participants in politics who support Bernie who would not support her in a general election no matter how hard I and others try to persuade them.....and whoever persuaded her that running for Obama's third term is the way to win a general election is far removed from American politics in 2016, and if they think she can constantly shift her position they do not understand the depth of distrust of her and the damage it does.... and they do not understand in the modern communications environment she cannot be a centrist one day and a liberal the next day because images and impressions are formed and locked in far earlier than in the 1970's to 1990's. This is a campaign that has never had a compelling rationale and now has lost its way into a sea of negativity.....the way for her to be elected is to solve the first problem, and develop some uplifting reason for voters to support her, and not to create a second problem, running a negative campaign without a positive message and vision.....

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7742

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's good to see this has turned into another argument about the election.


If this is a matter of word choice, it'll need clarification/course correction. But if "who is right" can be switched out with "what is factually correct" or "what is objectively true", then there is already a method of determination: the scientific method.

Throwing the "who" in there and making it about opinions just makes it... about opinions.

The scientific method may be the means of investigation but you still need some sort of due process to determine whose conclusions we buy. If twenty scientists come up with four different evaluations of a theory relevant to policy, we need some methodology to determine who used said scientific method better. Science doesn't have some divine judge that does that for us.

Even if there is a disparity in the intellectual distribution of demographic groups, there's far more variation within a group than there is between them, so enacting blanket policy with that proxy is incredibly unfair. Not that I expect the above poster to understand what I just said.

You could not understand anything in the first place, the entire thread is basically ignoring the most effective form of adjudicating the truth. So you pretty much failed.

And what is this "most effective" manner?

The emails you tried to ignore cause you love Hillary so much.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Even if there is a disparity in the intellectual distribution of demographic groups, there's far more variation within a group than there is between them, so enacting blanket policy with that proxy is incredibly unfair. Not that I expect the above poster to understand what I just said. im pretty confident more disparity within races are untrue.

We aren't talking about Hillary's emails, or any one event in particular. We're talking about a broader, theoretical criteria for evaluating truth claims. This is incredibly obvious to anyone with the faculties to grasp complex, abstract ideas, but other people are more suited to understanding more concrete, monotonous tasks, so it isn't a conversation for everyone.

Originally posted by Its2016
im pretty confident more disparity within races are untrue.

That's statistically absurd. IQ is normally distributed and defined on a standard deviation of 15; there's no way two ethnic groups could have more variation between them than within them, not unless like one group has an average IQ of 200 and the other of 50.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
We aren't talking about Hillary's emails, or any one event in particular. We're talking about a broader, theoretical criteria for evaluating truth claims. This is incredibly obvious to anyone with the faculties to grasp complex, abstract ideas, but other people are more suited to understanding more concrete, monotonous tasks, so it isn't a conversation for everyone. okay, ill stay on topic.

I recognise debate is within the scientific community and part of finding truth. But having stated previous flaws with democracy, is an authoritarian model of truth better? Law, feudalism, etc.

Originally posted by Its2016
okay, ill stay on topic.

I recognise debate is within the scientific community and part of finding truth. But having stated previous flaws with democracy, is an authoritarian model of truth better? Law, feudalism, etc.

I was talking to TI, not you, assuming you are different people.

I don't think dictatorships are typically that truthful either. They're probably worse.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
We aren't talking about Hillary's emails, or any one event in particular. We're talking about a broader, theoretical criteria for evaluating truth claims. This is incredibly obvious to anyone with the faculties to grasp complex, abstract ideas, but other people are more suited to understanding more concrete, monotonous tasks, so it isn't a conversation for everyone.

Is this why you have been avoiding the emails?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Is this why you have been avoiding the emails?

WTF does this thread have to do with Hillary's emails? Why does every thread have to be about Hillary's emails?

You literally don't understand a word that anyone says that involves any sort of intellectual thought processes beyond metaphorically screaming Trump slogans into your keyboard.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
WTF does this thread have to do with Hillary's emails? Why does every thread have to be about Hillary's emails?

You literally don't understand a word that anyone says that involves any sort of intellectual thought processes beyond metaphorically screaming Trump slogans into your keyboard.

Ironic since this exactly what you just did in the other thread just a minute ago.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I was talking to TI, not you, assuming you are different people.

I don't think dictatorships are typically that truthful either. They're probably worse. we are

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Ironic since this exactly what you just did in the other thread just a minute ago.

No, bringing up Trump's second amendment quote is a very clear parallel to Hillary's alleged assassination threat. For this, meanwhile, you clearly misinterpreted a more philosophical question for a topic on Hillary's emails (how the f*ck did you make that connection?), showing once again the darker side of populism.

Considering he was advocating for the NRA to lobby congress, nah. He was not.

Regardless, you are a Clinton supporter and you support a women who is openly racist, hoped Obama was going to be taken out, the most corrupt pos in history.

I get it, you dont like Trump cause he said mean things, so that means you vote for a true POS like Hillary?

Expertise for me. Although i find it difficult to determine how much of an expert.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Considering he was advocating for the NRA to lobby congress, nah. He was not.

Regardless, you are a Clinton supporter and you support a women who is openly racist, hoped Obama was going to be taken out, the most corrupt pos in history.

I get it, you dont like Trump cause he said mean things, so that means you vote for a true POS like Hillary?

What does any of this have to do with the thread?

It's like someone makes a topic about the new Star Wars trailer, and you call them an idiot for not talking about the NBA finals. What you say has literally no relationship with what other people are talking about, probably because the conversation is somewhat cognitively loaded.

Emails are the most effective method of adjudicating the truth

Originally posted by The Ellimist
The scientific method may be the means of investigation but you still need some sort of due process to determine whose conclusions we buy. If twenty scientists come up with four different evaluations of a theory relevant to policy, we need some methodology to determine who used said scientific method better. Science doesn't have some divine judge that does that for us. Your use of the word 'policy' there throws a monkey wrench in to everything. Policy (and politics) are the purview of people with feelings, opinions, and agendas. Subjective stuff, based on preference and emotion.


But the scientific method itself strives to be devoid of that. The means of determining objective truth (or as close to it as current knowledge, understanding, and technology can get us) is a separate thing entirely with what people do with it's findings. If by "evaluations" you also mean "interpretation." Coming to a conclusion of what or how something is is different from determining what to do with that conclusion from this point on.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Your use of the word 'policy' there throws a monkey wrench in to everything. Policy (and politics) are the purview of people with feelings, opinions, and agendas. Subjective stuff, based on preference and emotion.


But the scientific method itself strives to be devoid of that. The means of determining objective truth (or as close to it as current knowledge, understanding, and technology can get us) is a separate thing entirely with what people do with it's findings. If by "evaluations" you also mean "interpretation." Coming to a conclusion of what or how something is is different from determining what to do with that conclusion from this point on.

Where does morality come into play?

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Where does mirslity2come into play? Don't refer to yourself in the third person, the neighbours talk enough as it is.


Originally posted by Sin I AM
Where does morality come into play? IMO, absolutely nowhere.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Your use of the word 'policy' there throws a monkey wrench in to everything. Policy (and politics) are the purview of people with feelings, opinions, and agendas. Subjective stuff, based on preference and emotion.


But the scientific method itself strives to be devoid of that. The means of determining objective truth (or as close to it as current knowledge, understanding, and technology can get us) is a separate thing entirely with what people do with it's findings. If by "evaluations" you also mean "interpretation." Coming to a conclusion of what or how something is is different from determining what to do with that conclusion from this point on.

I don't think we're on the same page here.

Say we want to know whether Bob killed Susan. This is a determination of fact - it's not a subjective question. How do we adjudicate this? You're basically saying "use the scientific method", which is true - but the other side of that question is who gets to determine whether the scientific method was adequately followed? And the answer in our current justice system is that we decided to use a jury of our peers, though that's debatably optimal.

Likewise, if the NFL wants to determine whether a receiver was out of bounds, "use instant replay" is the answer on one level; but the other level is who gets to review the instant replay?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I don't think we're on the same page here.

Say we want to know whether Bob killed Susan. This is a determination of fact - it's not a subjective question. How do we adjudicate this? You're basically saying "use the scientific method", which is true - but the other side of that question is who gets to determine whether the scientific method was adequately followed? And the answer in our current justice system is that we decided to use a jury of our peers, though that's debatably optimal.

Likewise, if the NFL wants to determine whether a receiver was out of bounds, "use instant replay" is the answer on one level; but the other level is who gets to review the instant replay? And there you have the joining of determining something's objective truth (as close to objective as we can get with what's at hand), and deciding on what to do with that.


Everything that follows the first part is reliant on opinions, feelings values, etc. Very human, very subjective. Even before the science gets involved, there's a laundry list of additional humans to consider first.

The witnesses.
The associates.
The police.
The investigators.
The media.
The judge.
Another judge.
Lawyers.
Jurys.
Friends.
Family.

Picking who gets to decide what is a tough process from scratch, and even after millennia of various systems we still have trouble with it. We'll always have trouble with it. There is no way to come up with an objective truth to any scenario whose validity can't very easily be questioned due to interference by subjective humans. This quite quickly will descend into solipsistic madness.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't refer to yourself in the third person, the neighbours talk enough as it is.


IMO, absolutely nowhere.

Good answer

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And there you have the joining of determining something's objective truth (as close to objective as we can get with what's at hand), and deciding on what to do with that.


I'm not asking that; I'm asking who gets to determine which objective truth has been reached, not the next step of what to do with it. Here, the question is which referee gets to decide whether the receiver was in-bounds, not what the implications of that are.

The question of which objective truth has been reached isn't a subjective one - it's imprecise and difficult to answer, but that doesn't mean it's subjective in kind.



Well, that's the thread topic. But the lack of an adjudication method that's 100% accurate doesn't preclude the need to discuss which one we pick, nor does it preclude useful discussion; this can often be resolved empirically. For instance, the accuracy of polls vs. betting markets can be examined statistically; the accuracy of judge tribunals vs. juries can probably be data mined in one manner or another. We can look at whether popular opinion surveys are better at guessing certain facts than, say, expert consensus, etc. Saying that none of these are perfect has nothing to do with whether some are better than others.

We can't reach an objective truth about opinions.

Doesn't matter how accurate a poll is, etc. It's still just opinions.

All we can do is say someones opinion has been noted and move on.

You can sure say some methods are better than others, it won't change much though.

We have enough smug people here already, we sure as hell don't need people running around trying to claim their opinions are more valid than others.

Originally posted by Surtur
We can't reach an objective truth about opinions.

Doesn't matter how accurate a poll is, etc. It's still just opinions.

All we can do is say someones opinion has been noted and move on.

You can sure say some methods are better than others, it won't change much though.

We have enough smug people here already, we sure as hell don't need people running around trying to claim their opinions are more valid than others.

The point is to adjudicate on factual claims, not opinions.

So "who gets to decide which claims truly are factual", is the question you're asking?

What the most effective mechanism of coming to determinations of fact is. I mean this on a consensus level; we use tools like the scientific method, but that doesn't answer how we determine who has better adhered to it. They're two different questions.

It's not exactly an original topic, so I don't understand why there's so much confusion. There's been lots of debate over the comparative efficacy of betting markets vs. polling aggregates (politics), intuition-driven expert predictions vs. economic models (economics), juries vs. tribunals of judges (law); this is just a generalized version of those debates.

Yeah I think this is a problem with word choice. Per your OP, I would leave the word "truth" out of this entirely. A contentious word; it can denote absolute, empirical fact, or... "my truth v. your truth."


Maybe: Most effective method at adjudicating interpretations, or predictions, or rules. Etc. Either way, I'd say an absolutely correct method of doing so doesn't exist. Preferences and bias and whatnot.