It's incorrect because they didn't get it right. No one is saying 30% can't happen, but we're saying why are you putting value into the predictors if they consistently make predictors that turn out wrong.
Then if we're talking about an event that will only happen in these circumstances one time, what exactly is the value of these types of predictions? They could have given Trump a 1% chance of winning and still said "well that's not impossible". That's not incorrect, but it sure sounds a lot like ass-covering and it makes you wonder why we even listen to this
It's valuable because it's interesting. Might help you plan for future events. I might take an umbrella if there is a 30% chance of rain but not if there is a 1% chance
Keep in mind, it's not just a prediction of the overall result, they are also forecasting each state, D.C., and the popular vote, so it's more like an ensemble of 52 predictions, so you can also judge the accuracy of each of those forecasts as well.
I mean, not really, but you're essentially saying "If he said it was 50-50 instead of likely Hillary would he have been wrong?" Well, no, but he didn't say that.
It's incorrect because they didn't get it right. No one is saying 30% can't happen, but we're saying why are you putting value into the predictors if they consistently make predictors that turn out wrong.
If a weatherman says the chance of rain is 30%, and it rains, his forecast is not necessarily incorrect. You need repeated trials to confirm accuracy.
If 10/10 times he predicts a 30% chance of rain it rains, then yeah, he's a bad forecaster.
If 3/10 times he predicts 30% chance of rain it rains, then he's pretty accurate
Then if we're talking about an event that will only happen in these circumstances one time, what exactly is the value of these types of predictions? They could have given Trump a 1% chance of winning and still said "well that's not impossible". That's not incorrect, but it sure sounds a lot like ass-covering and it makes you wonder why we even listen to this
It's valuable because it's interesting. Might help you plan for future events. I might take an umbrella if there is a 30% chance of rain but not if there is a 1% chance
I think they're refering to predictions for a presidential election, not weather predictions
In that case it's just interesting. There's nothing you can do with this information
Keep in mind, it's not just a prediction of the overall result, they are also forecasting each state, D.C., and the popular vote, so it's more like an ensemble of 52 predictions, so you can also judge the accuracy of each of those forecasts as well.
Giving 30% odds to an event that happens is not incorrect though. It's not getting it wrong
I don't really get this logic. If he had given Trump a 49.9% chance of winning would he have still been wrong?
I mean, not really, but you're essentially saying "If he said it was 50-50 instead of likely Hillary would he have been wrong?" Well, no, but he didn't say that.