DATA - Fittie in columnistenland USA.
Nate Silver, die zijn reputatie vestigde door de uitkomst van de Amerikaanse presidentsverkiezingen in zowel 2008 als 2012 een heel stuk accurater te voorspellen dan welke gevestigde politieke analist dan ook, heeft het aan de stok met econoom en New York Times-columnist Paul Krugman.
Silver lanceerde onlangs een eigen nieuwssite, FiveThirtyEight, onder de aegis van de Amerikaanse sportgigant ESPN. De initiële reacties (I, II, III) waren al niet onverdeeld gunstig, maar toen Paul Krugman eveneens met stevige kritiek kwam aanzetten, was de boot natuurlijk aan. De kern van Krugmans bezwaren:
But I’d argue that many of the critics are getting the problem wrong. It’s not the reliance on data; numbers can be good, and can even be revelatory. But data never tell a story on their own. They need to be viewed through the lens of some kind of model, and it’s very important to do your best to get a good model. And that usually means turning to experts in whatever field you’re addressing.
Unfortunately, Silver seems to have taken the wrong lesson from his election-forecasting success. In that case, he pitted his statistical approach against campaign-narrative pundits, who turned out to know approximately nothing. What he seems to have concluded is that there are no experts anywhere, that a smart data analyst can and should ignore all that.
