4

I sometimes encounter a view that only perfect forecasting is really forecasting.

For example, if I claim that I have a model which forecasts election results, people will think I'm making the absurd claim that I can forecast election results with perfect accuracy. When I explain that my forecasts have errors but the errors are, say, 10% smaller than chance would suggest, I am told that I'm "not really" forecasting.

Is there a formal name for this fallacy? I know that this is a special case of a fallacy of equivocation, assuming the word forecast is being used colloquially when it is being used technically. But is there a more specific name?

Andre Silva
  • 3,070
  • 5
  • 28
  • 55
user4945913
  • 81
  • 2
  • 3
    I wouldn't call not understanding statistics a "fallacy"... – Tim Jun 28 '15 at 20:00
  • I agree, but I'm asking because of my experience that people are more willing to accept that they are in error when they are told that they are committing a named fallacy, rather than being told that they do not understand something. – user4945913 Jun 30 '15 at 02:13
  • 1
    So make-up some name based on beliving-named-fallacies fallacy you observed... Related: http://dilbert.com/strip/2008-05-08 – Tim Jun 30 '15 at 07:11
  • 1
    And seriously: your clients/audience would learn more if you described them your method and results, rather then throwing some "technical" name that "explains" their lack of understanding. Names do not really solve things. – Tim Jun 30 '15 at 07:21

0 Answers0