Cathy claims that Nate Silver confused cause and effect in his New York Times best seller "Signal and Noise". Cathy cites a few examples of this.
For instance, in Cathy's judgement, corruption caused bad models, not the other way around.
Reasonable people can disagree.
That isn't anything that anybody wants to hear though. In general, populist messages are positive.
Indeed, Nate is popularizing modelling.
Cathy doesn't like it:
"Silver is selling a story we all want to hear, and a story we all want to be true. Unfortunately for us and for the world, it’s not."
And, there's a call to action:
"It would be great if substantive data scientists had a way of getting together to defend the subject against sensationalist celebrity-fueled noise."
People want to hear what they want to hear.
It's akin to the person who sells beet juice across the street from somebody who sells Boylan's Root Beer.
Good on Cathy for voicing the concerns.
Is it really such a bad thing that Nate Silver is sort of like the Entertainment Tonight of bayesian modelling though?
I'm Christopher Berry