"The trouble with "facts"? It is similar to the term "truth". It hints strongly at a moralistic, innumerate Dark Ages approach to knowledge." Beg to differ.
So when scientists write and talk about 'stylized facts', first, second, third and forth moments, probabilities, likelihood functions what do they mean?
And why do they rarely if ever talk about 'facts' and the 'truth'?
Geez Louise, was this ever buried deep. Had to go to page 4 to find a copy I could embed.
"The trouble with "facts"? It is similar to the term "truth". It hints strongly at a moralistic, innumerate Dark Ages approach to knowledge."
Beg to differ.
So when scientists write and talk about 'stylized facts', first, second, third and forth moments, probabilities, likelihood functions what do they mean?
And why do they rarely if ever talk about 'facts' and the 'truth'?
Kurt may have a point: towards the end, some news sites were reporting on the Trump administration and the president in an openly critical manner. But they backed up their reporting and opinions with facts. The British press mostly use this approach.
And in my opinion, the open criticism of Trump and Trump's policies was quite justified. Trump is easily the worst president we've ever had. I didn't think Dubya would ever lose that title but there it is.
Yes, I noted a definite souring towards the Trump administration as 2020 and the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic progressed. Not surprising given the circumstances.
I would avoid the use of the term "facts" and describe the reporting as evidence-based.
The trouble with "facts"? It is similar to the term "truth". It hints strongly at a moralistic, innumerate Dark Ages approach to knowledge.
"The trouble with "facts"? It is similar to the term "truth". It
hints strongly at a moralistic, innumerate Dark Ages approach to
knowledge."
Kurt may have a point: towards the end, some news sites were reporting on the Trump administration and the president in an openly critical manner. But they backed up their reporting and opinions with facts. The British press mostly use this approach.
And in my opinion, the open criticism of Trump and Trump's policies was quite justified. Trump is easily the worst president we've ever had. I didn't think Dubya would ever lose that title but there it is.
Yes, I noted a definite souring towards the Trump administration as 2020 and the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic progressed. Not surprising given the circumstances.
I would avoid the use of the term "facts" and describe the reporting as evidence-based.
The trouble with "facts"? It is similar to the term "truth". It hints strongly at a moralistic, innumerate Dark Ages approach to knowledge.
If we treat Biden the same way, yes. It is the job of journalists to dig and not trust, anyone. And report their actual findings, without editorializing, or did I miss something along the way ? Something about the 5 W's and only the 5 W's used to be the prime directive is my recollection.
Your previous comment, to which I responded, seemed to assail the zero tolerance standard â which you stated was established and used by the people here on this forum. Now, with this post, you shift to talking about the standards employed by the media.
We're all reporters now, see?!!?
Kurt may have a point: towards the end, some news sites were reporting on the Trump administration and the president in an openly critical manner. But they backed up their reporting and opinions with facts. The British press mostly use this approach.
And in my opinion, the open criticism of Trump and Trump's policies was quite justified. Trump is easily the worst president we've ever had. I didn't think Dubya would ever lose that title but there it is.
Your previous comment, to which I responded, seemed to assail the zero tolerance standard — which you stated was established and used by the people here on this forum. Now, with this post, you shift to talking about the standards employed by the media.
It has been demonstrated to be true in both cases imho, here in the forum and the media. That I meant it to apply to the media initially and your interpretation that I was speaking about the forum just confirms the existence of both cases. Although I did use the word "coverage" in my statement that you replied to which would certainly imply the media by most as opposed to the individuals here in the forum.
Freudian slip ?
So adjust your reply for this explanation, should you find the need. Has Trump been treated unfairly ?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 22, 2021 - 7:38pm
kurtster wrote:
If we treat Biden the same way, yes. It is the job of journalists to dig and not trust, anyone. And report their actual findings, without editorializing, or did I miss something along the way ? Something about the 5 W's and only the 5 W's used to be the prime directive is my recollection.
Your previous comment, to which I responded, seemed to assail the zero tolerance standard â which you stated was established and used by the people here on this forum. Now, with this post, you shift to talking about the standards employed by the media.
If we treat Biden the same way, yes. It is the job of journalists to dig and not trust, anyone. And report their actual findings, without editorializing, or did I miss something along the way ? Something about the 5 W's and only the 5 W's used to be the prime directive is my recollection.
So are you suddenly having a "come to Jesus moment" and saying that Trump was treated unfairly ?
Are you now saying Trump was treated fairly?
If we treat Biden the same way, yes. It is the job of journalists to dig and not trust, anyone. And report their actual findings, without editorializing, or did I miss something along the way ? Something about the 5 W's and only the 5 W's used to be the prime directive is my recollection.
