Saturday, August 30, 2008

Just how much could he have won?

My longstanding mate, Brad, over at the Crossed Pond has posted about how well his predictions on the US Presidential have been, and even though he is lowing his own trumpet he does deserve a pat on the back for what he got right.

In December last year he not only predicted the nominees correctly, but he also predicted what order they would finish perfectly. In June he said that he considered Sarah Palin the best running mate for McCain, and in July he declared Biden should be the running mate of Obama.

I wonder how much he could have won on that on Political Betting.

17 comments:

canvas said...

There's a calculator on BetFair if you really want to find out. You can find out the odds and bingo there you go.

Let's hope your mate doesn't put his money on the most anti-intellectual ticket of all time (which is McCain-Palin). The smart money is on Obama/Biden.

:)

dizzy said...

Define "anti-intellectual"?

Mitch said...

It took the wind right out of Obamas sails,saw the interview he looked like his dog had died mumbling about her life narrative or somat. I would say being a woman with kids one disabled one in Iraq trumps his slight blackness.
Still think they are all nuts though just glad that clinton woman got the boot.

canvas said...

Ask George Bush.

dumbed down, anti-rationalism, not understanding the difference between factual evidence and opinion, little contemplation or logic, pandering to the lowest common denominator, patronising


McCain responds to most questions on a purely emotional level. His choice of Sarah Palin is cynical. By the way, Sarah Palin wants to teach creationism in schools.

hhhhmmmmmmmm

canvas said...

or ask mitch


:)

dizzy said...

examples, rather than more concepts please

canvas said...

You actually said 'define'.

I don't have time to list the many examples - but you're good at spotting anti-science , anti-intellectual traits...

look at their policies

Got a lunch date - gotta fly

(to put it into context - you have an intellectual blog. Iain Dale has an anti-intellectual blog. However, I'm not saying that Iain is unintelligent. Get it?)

Conand said...

It must be nice to be right all the time.
I've never disagreed with what Dizzy has said or written. Whether that makes him right or not is something else entirely.
On the one hand I'm troubled by creationism/intelligent design (whateva) and on the other I'm troubled by Obama's protectionist streak.
But (and this is a big ol' american butt) McCain and Obama seem to be nice people who couldn't possibly be worse than Bush, could they?? Oh god!

dizzy said...

Canvas, would you consider Descartes to be anti-intellectual, or anti-rational?

canvas said...

Longggggg lunch. woohoo.

that dude was deep. I have to say I just don't know the answer. He was wrong about 'scientific' facts - but he thought about it. Therefore, if those are my only two choices (wish there were more) I'll go for anti-rational?

Big question for you - Do you consider Boris Johnson to be anti-rational, or anti-intellectual?

nite nite :)

kinglear said...

I'm not 100% sure if Mrs. Palin wholeheartedly BELIEVES in creationism. My understanding is she wants it taught in schools in the same way that eg Darwinism might be - but I could be wrong. Another way to look at it is to suggest that creationism is the story of the Bible as we know it. Could it be she wants people to have an understanding of the Bible? I think learning right from wrong would be a very good thing to teach in schools. I'm not sure we do that over here any more - and certainly quite a few parents don't appear to teach that either.

dizzy said...

canvas, I think, based on your answer, you ought to go and read up on the history of rationalism and discover what it actually is.

Incidnetally, you refer to "scientifc facts" as well, that is slightly concerning because you seem to be expressing that science deals with inductive proofs, which it doesn't. There are no truths in science, there are are only testable hypotheses that have yet to be disproved. Darwinism happens to be a very good example of this. The strength of Darwinian theory is based upon the number times a test has been formulated which has failed to disprove the theory. It does therefore follow that the theory itself is by necessity true. That is what makes it posesse the quality of being scientific.

However, back to rationalism, Descartes used rational analysis to conclude that God existed. Being rational is about the method not the conclusion. One can be rational and produce absurd ends. Platonic forms are a good example fo rational theory, yet I imagine you would, based upon what you've already said, consider PLato an anti-rationalist as well?

dizzy said...

Regarding Boris Johnson, I do not know what Boris Johnson ontological viewpoint is, so I could not tell you whether he is a rationalist or an empiricist.

canvas said...

All I can say is never log on to your computer when you return home after a long 12 hour lunch. Alcohol and the internet sooo do not mix.

I have no idea where my train of thought was going with Boris (!?) or Descartes. Absolutely no idea.

My hangover hurts. bye.

canvas said...

dizzy - just read your comments - I think what I was referring to was 'animals don't feel pain thing'.

I don't claim to have vast knowledge of the history of rationalism. You're right, I should read up on it.

you're funny. :)

My head still hurts and you're making it worse. Bye.

dizzy said...

My questions were a deliberate use of socratic irony :)

canvas said...

By the way, Dizzy, have you read Iain's two most recent posts about global warming and Peter Hitchens?

I'm worried about Iain. Very worried. He is soooo irrational these days.

;)