Reply #74: Not about character assassination, but of depth and style of analysis [View All]

TIA, to many of the people questioning his methods and assumptions, has shown, at least to my understanding, a failure to appreciate experimental design and hypothesis testing. He has engaged in ad hominen attacks, personally calling me out as a republican when I am a registered Democrat since the time I could vote. These responses generally follow germane and critical comments regarding his assumptions and analyzes.

I found his work on the exit polling a fruitful hypothesis, but consider that it has now been refuted. That is a high compliment, not an insult, however he has taken as such. His work has led me to evaluate and weigh other vote irregularity issues, and come away with the opinion that some strong arguments can be made that voter intent was not made known as precisely as it could be in this election (I am choosing my words carefully). I care about the fact that we, as Democrats, get it right; and now find TIA engaged in rehashing old arguments and information for emotional rather than intellectual impact. I consider his threads a distraction from the important work and political events taking place.

What I have been trying to engage TIA in would constitute informal peer review. Rather than take the critique for what it is, TIA pursues that you prove the opposite, a very interesting post-modern position for a mathematician, rather than address or refute my argument. For those that may not know, peer review is about getting it right, and egos should be left outside the door. I am direct and blunt, but I acknowledge and explain when I am in error.

The manner and tone of TIA's language reminds me of the creationist debate I participated in in the late eighties. We could never make the 'moderator' acknowledge his error as an error, but kept having to wade through his rhetorical tricks to keep making the point again and again. At least he wore down. He made a statement that suggested his lack of incisiveness on evolutionary theory was that he was not an expert. We had to make the point to him that he is offering a refutation of a widely held hypothesis, and at the very least had to hold him to the same standard as we would one of our own. Like it or not, the widely held theory is that the election was sufficiently fair and honest, and it is no one's duty to prove that it is, it is ours to show that it is not.

It is TIA's apparent ignorance of what constitutes the scientific method, and the fact that his current threads rely upon rhetorical flourishes that are suspicious. I was especially put off by his thread regarding null hypotheses (I believe that that is the one 'flame fest' thread that got deleted, but should have been reinstated, since the only one truly flaming was TIA)

TIA's manner and tone suggests that he is a neophyte in addressing basis science, and may not have the background in mathematics or science at all. I can tell you right now that his approach would not have survived in any of the graduate seminars I attended.

Mike