Subject:
|
On the veracity of statistics in general
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:27:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
138 times
|
| |
|
|
I was doing some Googletrolling with various search keywords, looking for
some scholarly work on the accuracy of UN statistics. It's a relatively
tough search...
I ran across this tidbit:
http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1997/97-P154at1.html
Now, this is anecdotal of course, but there is a lot of difference between
the 100-114M figure bandied about by the US state department, the UN and a
bunch of other people, and the 10M figure the author claims
But I do think it highlights how difficult it is to come up with accurate
statistics on things that aren't easy to measure.
I have no position on the relative merits of the author's position on the
subject he was writing about (land mines), I just found it in my search, so
don't focus on that bit, just the statistic on numbers that he is
challenging. (or if you want to, go start a new thread, this one is about
statistics)
Here's my thinking. Statistics have a tendency to self perpetuate. We all
know that to be true, Someone quotes them and gets cited and before you know
it they are enshrined as gospel. Statistics also have a tendency to get
cited out of context in order to make various points. Take the
healthcare/crime statistics about various crimes/causes of deaths/injuries
that are being bandied about here. Different factions here are citing the
same statistics to prove different things.
Many organisations are highly political. How likely is it that they always
rigorously validate every statistic they hear, especially if it happens to
fit their preconceived notions? How EASY is it to rigorously validate a
statistic anyway, if it's a statistic about a closed society?
That's why I take UN statistics, in particular, with larger grains of salt
than most, because the UN is more highly political than just about any
organization ever in existance. I'd say people that don't use similar
scepticism are naiive or foolish or deliberately misconstruing things for
their own ends.
The number of times a statistic is cited in the media, while an interesting
statistic in itself, has no bearing on how accurate the statistic itself is
unless the fact checking process behind it is rigorous. And we KNOW the
media are far from rigorous at checking facts. Unfortunately, it DOES have
bearing on how believable a statistic is because things that are repeated
tend to be remembered as true by a large fraction of people, who tend not to
think critically.
Do we have any statisticians, or polling experts or econometric experts in
the house that can comment authoritatively?
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| (...) Good summary Larry, I've been thinking about these issues a lot lately and agree with a lot of what you have said in your post. I think some of this is covered in the book called "how to lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff. I've never read (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| (...) That's right, you don't like UN stats do you? You said this: ==+== I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless independently corroborated, and that's a blanket statement. The UN apparatus is highly politicised and tends (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| (...) I agree with all of this, but even still tend to accept statistics unless I have a reason to not. I suspect that the UN rarely lies in it's reporting of statistics. I think accidental inaccuracies are more worrisome. In the page Scott recently (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
