[solveit]

I hate to call something gaslighting, but this is gaslighting of the highest order. I am not familiar with Australian politics, but the other three cases were textbook cases of the data saying one thing (Trump might win, BoJo will probably win, and Brexit might happen) and people refusing to believe it.

How these get turned to make precisely the opposite point (Not just by you. It happens all the time) never ceases to amaze me. Presumably the thought process is "I and the people I respect build beliefs based on data. I and the people I respect were wrong. Therefore the data was wrong". Unbelievable.

[AmericanChopper]

What exactly is “the data” that we’re talking about? Is it the measurements that were made, and the methodology used to make them? Or is it the conclusion that something in this case is a “myth”? Because I’d suggest that only one of those things is “the data”, and the other one is a subjective interpretation of it. I’d also suggest that people who have an agenda to promote will often attempt to blur the line as much as possible between empirical measurements, and their own opinions about what they’re supposed to mean.

[solveit]

In this case, the data I am talking about are the polls. Of course, there's a lot of methodology that goes into designing the polls and the data collection process, but those were basically solid and importantly, not subjective.

> I’d also suggest that people who have an agenda to promote will often attempt to blur the line as much as possible between empirical measurements, and their own opinions about what they’re supposed to mean.

This ran rampant in all those cases (Trump, BoJo, Brexit), I agree.

[mensetmanusman]

There was data and then there was the NYT saying Hillary has a 99% chance. Ha

[sien]

The Australian election results were within the margin of error of the polls.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/19/voter...