Quote (fender @ 13 Aug 2018 22:46)
oh really? maybe you should read your own posts more carefully:
speaks for itself that you don't even seem to realise anymore how automatically you just dismiss what doesn't fit your own views...
.
allow me to explain this:
in my original post, I wrote "partisan study" and meant "study funded by partisan actors". I should have made this clearer.
in the second post, our debate hat shifted to the question if the study itself was produced with bad intentions, with an explicit mission to manipulate. this I dont know, even though I consider it very plausible when we look at who paid for all of it. but since I dont have definitive proof for this claim, I refrain from concluding that the study content definitively is shaped by partisan bias, even though I consider it likely.
note that this has been my point from the very beginning: even in my original post, my conclusion was to "treat this study's results with a heavy grain of salt", and not that "it is undeniably a complete fabrication".
but fine, you got me, I used imprecise language which led to my words contradicting themselves, since I couldnt remember every single word I wrote 30 hours before, and it makes me look bad. is this what you wanted to hear?
---
btw:
Quote
the guardian article treated this study like it produced definitive results
this still is a valid criticism of mine. as I explained above, we simply cant tell with certainty to which degree the content of the study is biased. (even though it's very reasonable to
assume quite some bias.)
to obtain this certainty would require access to the full study as well as the original data and the methodology, and a meticulous review process. as far as I can tell, the Guardian didnt do that; they simply took a study supporting their narrative, their worldview ("brexit is failing, and is rapidly losing public support") and published it without properly acknowledging the highly partisan background of those who ordered it.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 13 2018 11:26pm