How are media pundits "scientific"?

[sibelian]

Why would we assume they aren't "biased" and online polls are?

Why would publically and very obviously deleting large numbers of comments opposing a mainstream position on a mainstream news source's site make the position more tenable rather than less?

If DU's membership tends heavily towards the baby boomer demographic, and support for Sanders in online polls here repeatedly makes him ten times as popular as Clinton, why would one assume that online polls elsewhere are being pumped by "kids"?

If online polls are unscientific, why bother posting them on DU?

When people don't have a position to maintain but know they must maintain the appearance of a position, what do they do?

[leftofcool]

1. Well, here is an example

My 13 year old grand daughter has a Face Books account. She clicked the "Bernie" button on the CNN page because grandma told her to and I did it just for shits and giggles. Just saying.

[sibelian]

3. I don't think your experience is very likely to be particularly representative.

Shits and giggles appears to be your primary motivation in life in general. Repeatedly you say you don't read things and your posts here appear to consist entirely of statements that contradict things other people say, they are short, information-lite and following your terse comments you typically disappear.

[DanTex]

2. They aren't scientific, obviously. Nobody claimed that they are.

They are simply opinions.

[sibelian]

10. Then it is a farce to bring the criticism of "unscientific" to online polls...

... in discussions of who may have won the recent debate as the evidence for neither side can be regarded as "scientific".

The position as it stands is that there is flawed evidence that Sanders is more popular than Clinton and NO evidence that Clinton is more popular than Sanders, not even "unscientific" evidence. There's opinion, sure.

[DanTex]

12. No it's not. People are claiming that online polls represent the opinion of "the people".

The false narrative being pushed is that the pundits think Clinton won but the "people" think Bernie won.

Pointing out that these internet polls are unscientific and are at best tangentially related to what "the people" think is valid criticism. If someone posted an OP saying that their magic 8-Ball said that Bernie won the polls, it would likewise be worth pointing out that the magic 8-Ball is not actually magic, it's a device of random chance.

[sibelian]

14. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what it's responding to.

Did you know that?

[DanTex]

15. Yes it did. You claimed it was a "farce" to point out that unscientific polls are unscientific.

I explained why this is not true.

[sibelian]

16. No, you didn't.

You answered the question: "Why are online polls about Bernie not worth anything?" rather than make any attempt to establish how Clinton could be said to have won anything at all given that there is nothing supporting the assertion beyond the statements of a small group of media commentators.

If there are no reliable criteria we can use to establish victory, making observations about flaws in one set of criteria is pointless.

[DanTex]

18. I agree, there is no reliable criteria, at this point at least, to decide who won.

It's mostly a matter of opinion. Most pundits, as you said, have opined that Clinton won. But not all.

Still, if someone says something dumb, like claiming that online polls represent the voice of the people, or that the magic 8-ball has declared Bernie the winner, pointing out how dumb that is is far from pointless.

[Metric System]

4. Huh? They aren't. Nobody said they are.

[sibelian]

11. see #10.

Many thanks.

[JoePhilly]

5. They aren't. Hope that clears up the confusion.

[sufrommich]

6. "if online polls are unscientific, why bother posting them on DU? "

Good question.

[DCBob]

7. Pundits are simply giving their opinion based on their experience and judgment.

Not scientific.

[LWolf]

8. They're not.

Simple answer.

They're not, and the opinions of media pundits are not more credible than online polls.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. They're scientific as a shit-ton of scientists to some...

Some; like those who agree with them.

[Fred Sanders]

13. Simply a non-sequitur. Apples to scientists. Opinion versus measurement of opinion.

But what the complaint really is at DU for some was the expectation before the debate and the reality afterwards.....OUCH, for some!

Not understanding statistical science....did not know there were so many at DU.

[sibelian]

17. I am unclear on how you have arrived at these conclusions.

Also, to be frank, Fred, you have never particularly impressed your own scientific credentials upon me.

I don't really see any "ouch" to speak of. I can't see why polls relating an utterly overwhelming preference for Sanders over all the other candidates including Clinton would be a source of disappointment, whether they are reliable or not. What we can say without any doubt is that following the debate there is a dramatic paucity of evidence for Clinton's popularity from at least one method of anaylisis. That's hardly "ouch", is it?

Naturally, the only option available to Clinton supporters is to suppose that the polls aren't worth anything. You have no choice.

Whilst we're on the subject of "statistical science", asserting an unreliable response in a poll requires it's own justification. In the absence of that justification, the assertion of bias is open to criticism of bias itself. Any statistician can tell you this.

Also, I think you need to familiarise yourself with the actual meaning of the term "non-sequitur". Be careful, or it will soon join the rest of the list of terms certain people don't appear to have a very firm grasp of on this site, like "irony" and "hypocrisy".