Originally Posted by doublem23
You can harp on this for as long as you want but your original analogy is still the stuff of complete buffoonery.
Situation one: Die
-Has a person who bases his decision purely on statistics
-Person gets prediction wrong because he forgot to consider another factor
Situation two: PECOTA
-Has people who base decisions purely on statistics
-People get prediction wrong because they forgot to consider another factor
This makes it a valid analogy. That is what an analogy is.
Your idea of a valid analogy is evidently one in which everything is exactly the same: "People who base decisions on weighted statistical models are just like people who base decisions on weighted statistical models because both of them base decisions on weighted statistical models." or, "A zebra is just like another zebra because they are both zebras."
These statements are meaningless.
Calling someone a buffoon just because he paid attention in English class in high school and knows what an analogy is meant to convey is typical--among high school students. Not adults.