Last month, the quant-blogger mathbabe took your book to task for confusing cause and effect. She said, "We didn’t have a financial crisis because of a bad model or a few bad models. We had bad models because of a corrupt and criminally fraudulent financial system ... this is not just wrong, it’s maliciously wrong." She then claimed you were "a man who deeply believes in experts," which is where your book went wrong.
Could you address this criticism and defend your conclusions?
stickycinnamon277 karma
Last month, the quant-blogger mathbabe took your book to task for confusing cause and effect. She said, "We didn’t have a financial crisis because of a bad model or a few bad models. We had bad models because of a corrupt and criminally fraudulent financial system ... this is not just wrong, it’s maliciously wrong." She then claimed you were "a man who deeply believes in experts," which is where your book went wrong.
Could you address this criticism and defend your conclusions?
(full post: http://mathbabe.org/2012/12/20/nate-silver-confuses-cause-and-effect-ends-up-defending-corruption/)
View HistoryShare Link