May 22, 2008 by Vándorló Budapest

Yes, before you start, this is all unbelievably tedious. Again I'm posting up comments that should have remained just that, but as it happens there is a liberal (cough) loose with a penchant for redacting anything that calls other people's attention to her haughtiness.

As a side story, a musicologist with a loose pen and sloppy thinking then starts going off on one thinking I am someone else. The back story isn't really worth recounting. Fill in the pieces for yourself.

All that said, I take offence to people taking offence and deleting my comments without even trying to engage (at any level) in a conversation. So here is the comment thread from another post lovingly reconstructed for your delectation.

Comments

Eva, you often repeat that you distrust the Hungarian branch of Gallup ("Gallup is occasionally off by ten points."), but you have to learn to revise your opinions based on evidence.

You last repeated this statement in the run up to the referendum when you commented:

"Médián is talking about 46%, Gallup 54%, Marketing Central 33% and Publicus, whoever they are, 68%. (At every election we have, I suspect, a bogus polling company. This time it seems to be called Publicus. I have an idea whose brainchild this was.) As for Gallup, Gallup of Hungary is usually so far off that it is not worth taking them seriously. It's a shame that Hungarian Gallup is tarnishing the name of this oldest American polling company." (your post from March 7th, 2008)

The final turnout was 50.48%, which made the Gallup prediction the closest.

You don't seem to have revised your opinion or knowledge base based on plain stark fact.

Posted by: dinayekapelye | May 21, 2008 at 12:46 AM

Dinayekapelye,

You can't refute "occasionally" with one instance where Gallup were on the money.

Do have evidence that Gallup are never or rarely 10% off?

Or more interestingly, that Eva's preferred pollsters "(Századvég, Médián, Marketing Centrum, Tárki, Szonda Ipsos)" have similar margins of error?

Unless you have the evidence or the argument to support your criticisms, please don't waste our time.

Posted by: Adrian | May 21, 2008 at 01:57 AM

Adrian,

Your understanding of scientific knowledge and progress is unfortunately based on the very outdated (but widely used) model of monotonic logic and Popper's empirical falsificationist approach.

Having said that Eva's reasoning is based on the approach Popper worked so hard to prove misguided, that of the justificationist approach (dependent on either panrationalism which Eva favours or irrationalism).

Your logic is neither here nor there. I merely pointed out that one needs to revise one's opinions based on evidence or at least be more cautious, or better still clearly acknowledge one's bias.

And to answer your next question the model of reasoning you should be using if that of non-monotonic models such as Bayesian logic/probability.

For the record, I didn't refute or attempt to refute anything, I merely drew attention of an existing dataset that could help in revising opinions based on probabilities.

That said, it would be great to have the data and statistics as you outlined. My feeling is (to revert to abductive reasoning) that there would be little or no statistical difference between the main polling companies.

Posted by: dinayekapelye | May 21, 2008 at 02:35 AM

[Redacted here: comments on another discussion thread removed]

Water polo, anyone?

Posted by: Dumneazu |May 21, 2008 at 03:00 AM

Dumneazu,

As you appear interested in exploring this issue further I can recommend "I was a Teenage Logical Positivist (Now a Septuagenarian Radical Probabilist)"
Dick Jeffrey's PSA Presidential Address (1998) link http://www.princeton.edu/~bayesway/KC.tex.pdf

Though in your case that would be "... quinquagenarian..." - well, perhaps not. I think the teenage logical positivist is still dominant.

Posted by: dinayekapelye | May 21, 2008 at 04:21 AM

Hey, [Redacted], I'm not saying you are stupid, just extremely unethical, as befits a libertarian. Heck, a 3.50 in Economics is nothing to sniff at, is it?

But to the bemused spectators out there, V-who-can't-be-named seems to think it is fun to post his latest comments using the name of my band (the Hungarian klezmer band Di Naye Kapelye) with a hyper link to my photo from my band's web page. (I guess he gets a kick out of "outing" a Yiddish folklorist. Who would have thunk!)But then, all publicity is good publicity! Buy the CD, [Redacted]!

If anybody is interested in who V/[Redacted] is in the real world, I'm happy to divulge.

Posted by: Dumneazu | May 21, 2008 at 04:47 AM

Dinayekapelye,

"I merely pointed out that one needs to revise one's opinions based on evidence or at least be more cautious, or better still clearly acknowledge one's bias."

It's hard to imagine how Eva could be more cautious than by qualifying her point about Gallup than with "occasionally".

What do you mean by 'bias' here? The statistical meaning - she's a historian, not a statistician or a philospoher of science: or the ordinary one, in which case her bias, after the many thousands of words she has written is plain enough to anybody who has bothered to read them, and doesn't need any further comment. Why this insistance that she be bias free?

The rest I didn't understand, but I don't think you wanted me to understand, I think you just wanted to awe me with a display of technical langauge. Sad.

Posted by: Adrian | May 21, 2008 at 06:46 AM

[Redacted here: comments on another discussion thread removed]

Adrian,

It is not my fault you cannot follow a conversation. I have pitched my argument at the level of a reasonably intelligent postgraduate. This is not a blog for dullards. I make no excuses for your educational level, that is not my problem. You are simply wrong to assert that I don't want you to understand, I would love nothing more than to have a conversation reciprocated in kind. If you insist on assuming that I or anyone else has not got passed a 101 course in statistics and probabilities (which your reply inferred) then what do you expect?

The words/concepts/phrases you probably had difficulty with were: monotonic logic, Popper, empirical falsificationist, justificationist, panrationalism, irrationalism, non-monotonic, Bayesian logic/probability, abductive reasoning. You can simply look these up, if you don't know what they are. It would take chapters if not books to write my replies if I couldn't assume (which I do) that we are all ridiculously over-educated.

You are quite right Eva uses the hedging statement "occasionally", she also adds "in my opinion", "I personally" another hedging statement ("...some are better than others. I personally find Gallup the least reliable"). The statement from the 7th March goes further though and is marked with fewer hedging statements ("Gallup of Hungary is usually so far off that it is not worth taking them seriously. It's a shame that Hungarian Gallup is tarnishing the name of this oldest American polling company"). So here we also have the words "usually" as a qualifier.

In linguistics, particulary in the field of pragmatics hedging statements are studied in detail. What is worth noting is that these adjectives, adverbs, subclauses act along Gricean principles (search under the term 'Gricean Maxims' to learn the basics) to give additional information about the veracity, certainty, verisimilitude, completeness etc... of an utterance.

But these qualifying statements work at more than one level, particulary as part of a larger and ongoing communicative act (such as an online web log). Whilst Eva is making these statements she is also sure that you and everybody knows who she is and her academic background. As such, most individuals are less inclined to call to question the implicit assumptions she encourages you to make n.b. I do not assert by this that she either knows or understands the nature and manner in which she communicates this information, she is after all a historian, not a linguist, psychologist, logician or orator. For her, after years in academia, she simple presents information and ignores contrary information/statements.

So yes, Eva makes it clear that these are her personal opinions, that is and was not in doubt. Even though she claims that Gallup Hungary is 'tarnishing the good name' of Gallup in general it is a personal opinion. If you are happy with that, then fine, it's hardly worth taking further.

Might you concede in return that one might conceivably revise one's opinions in line with experience and evidence to the contrary? Or are we all doomed to stick to our beliefs no matter what? Worse still not acknowledge or answer for our errors of fact or judgement. As it happens historians belief systems, line of reasoning, use of facts and logic have to obey the same principles as everyone else's, even if their methods differ. You are simply restating panrationalism.

Dumneazu,

You are mistaken. I'm afraid your anger clouded your judgement somewhat. I am not who you assume I am.

I am not your friend Bufo bufo. What is more I have never met any of the established Pestiside or expat crowd. Although I know who you all are etc... It doesn't take much if you spend most of your time hacking (in its positive sense, not destructively) away on computers. So please don't bother to divulge any information for my gain.

A simple look at the content and style of my writing would have told you that I was not who you thought. There are plenty of lexical analysis tools freely available that would statistically confirm this. Our (mine and Bufo bufo's) idiolect are markedly different in structure and vocabularly.

And I presume you know who I am, even though we haven't met. I have never tried to hide it and it is completely obvious to anyone who isn't a complete 21st Century dimwit.

As you remarked on my "affected erudition" and basically accused me of proving by my comments that my level of discourse was of the same content and quality as the worst of Fidesz and Orbán without showing a willingness (or ability) to respond to the actual content of what I wrote, then I thought it amusing. Obviously you didn't.

It had nothing to do with your ethicity, caste, creed, religion or otherwise either - which you again inferred. You couldn't be more wrong on that point. As it happens I already know your music and would also recommend the CD.

I'm interested that you called what I did 'unethical' though. I wish you would say more. I am not familar with the model of ethics you refer to, so presume it is a home grown variety, as such I need to know how linking to your webpage constitutes a breech of ethical contract (assuming we had a such a contract).

The only theorist I can think you must be referring to is that of Emmanuel Levinas' ethical hermeneutics. For the benefit of Adrian: Levinas argues that the pursuit of knowledge is secondary to our 'ethical duty to the other'. Dumneazu, am I on the right track, or was this just a flippant remark meant to arouse sympathy from the audience and direct revulsion against me? Booo, sisss

"- I foresee, Mr Deasy said, that you will not remain here very long at this work. You were not born to be a teacher, I think. Perhaps I am wrong. - A learner rather, Stephen said. And here what will you learn more? Mr Deasy shook his head. - Who knows? he said. To learn one must be humble. But life is a great teacher."
- 'Ulysses' by J.J. p.41

Oh, there I go again. It's a kind of Tourette's. Or may be I'm just a Szent fazék, after all.

n.b. It happens that dispite Eva's claim to the contrary my posts were blocked by her comment filter. That is because I mentioned Bufo bufo by his nom-de-plume. This effectively swallowed my posts. Eva's claims to the contray are simply wrong, though it was a side effect of her campaign to redact comments she found unfavourable.

p.s. Additional words/concepts/phrases to look up (for the benefit of Adrian): hedging statements, Gricean Maxims, pragmatics, hermeneutics, bufo bufo, lexical analysis, idiolect

Posted by: YouKnowWho | May 21, 2008 at 11:40 PM

YouKnowWho. Your last comment is deleted. I don't allow insulting comments to appear on this blog.

Posted by: Eva S. Balogh | May 21, 2008 at 12:44 PM

YouKnowYou

Thanks for dumbing things down for me. I managed to understand nearly everything you wrote.

I'm familiar with Grice having studied him both in Philosophy as an undergraduate, and in Linguistics as a postgraduate. Could I draw your intention to his conversational maxims - especially of quantity - and suggest you try to use them in your future posts.

P.S. I enjoyed the quote form Ulysses.

Posted by: Adrian | May 21, 2008 at 02:30 PM

A comment on comments

Comments on my blog, these are currently turned off. This is simply because I am messing about with a server-database cluster and am having timing and lock problems with complex database queries. I have this almost sussed, but until it is streamlined and working to perfection (with the help of hibernate and memcached) I will be keeping the service threadbare. Once everything is fully tuned comments will be back on.