David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 25 (3):361 – 364 (1982)
Contrary to Aubert's claim, my paper on election predictions does not seek to draw empirical conclusions from mathematical premisses alone. The empirical premiss, approximated by the continuity assumption, is that sufficiently small changes in the predicted vote will cause only small changes in the actual vote. The technical criticisms by ?fsti and ?sterberg of the reaction function are answered by specifying the function's domain. Other criticisms are also answered, and the reply concludes by placing the election prediction theorem in the context of other theorizing about human expectations and outguessing phenomena
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nkeonye Otakpor (1988). "Election Tribunals, Election Petitions and Justice. Journal of Social Philosophy 19 (3):20-30.
Mark R. Klinger, Katherine L. Kerr & Mark E. Vande Kamp, The Self-Prophecy Effect: Increasing Voter Turnout by Vanity-Assisted Consciousness Raising.
Karl Egil Aubert (1982). The Role of Mathematics in the Exploration of Reality. Inquiry 25 (3):353 – 359.
Michael K. Miller, Guanchun Wang, Sanjeev R. Kulkarni & Daniel N. Osherson, Wishful Thinking and Social Inﬂuence in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election.
Karl Egil Aubert (1983). Ii. Mathematical Modelling of Election Predictions: Comments to Simon 's Reply. Inquiry 26 (1):132 – 134.
Added to index2009-01-30
Total downloads3 ( #220,595 of 1,005,973 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,735 of 1,005,973 )
How can I increase my downloads?