Which is a dumber political theory? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 17, 2024, 12:18:06 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  Which is a dumber political theory? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which is a dumber political theory?
#1
The Bradley Effect
 
#2
Realignment theory
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 14

Author Topic: Which is a dumber political theory?  (Read 1050 times)
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,276
United States


« on: March 11, 2009, 10:47:44 AM »

     Bradley effect, considering the man who it was named after was undisputably not a victim of it in the first place. The final polls showed him up by 1% & he lost by 1%. OMG 2% BRADLEY EFFECT!
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,276
United States


« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2009, 07:15:02 AM »

Greatest political theory - The BRTD Effect

It's not even really a theory anymore; it's fact.

Not to be all persnickety, but by the scientific definition of "theory," you do treat it as a de facto fact.  Tongue  (More accurately, you assume that it is true until there becomes reasonable evidence that it may not be)

"Realignment theory" is sort of a broad term.  What, specifically, are we talking?

Yes, a common misconception of language. Many people confuse a "theory" (which is an idea backed up by scientific evidence, though not yet to the extent that it can be determined to be true for certain) with a "hypothesis" (one that, while possibly sounding logical, has not yet been tested scientifically). A "law" of course is an idea that has been proven to be true beyond all scientific doubt through rigorous testing.

So for example when people say evolution is "just a theory" they seem to think that means it's not supported by any evidence.

     Yes, it annoys me as well. That reminds me:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 14 queries.