Subject:
|
Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:28:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
150 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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...
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 to produce answers that are politically
correct rather than actually correct.
==+==
You *rejected* UN data.
You never justified that, but nothing new there.
But then late this happened:
Scott A (quoting the a text in the Guardian):
> > ==+==
> > In May 1989, large-scale anthrax production began at a factory constructed
> > at Al Hakam. Unscom estimated that Al Hakam manufactured 8,425 litres of
> > anthrax bacteria during the course of 1990.
> > ==+==
Larry:
(...)
> (of course that cite just shows production capability, it could still be in
> production, or Iraq could be totally innocent of this particular perfidy and
> the site destroyed or out of production for years. Who knows?)
You *accepted* UN data. This apparent dichotomy worried me. So I did a quick
search for "UN Larry Neanderthal" and I got this (from a LP spam thread):
==+==
Scott A:
This is all noise, BUT where did you get the averages from?
Larry:
Not going to play this game any more, sorry. I've justified my assertion
that LUGNET members are more white and more male than the averages to my
satisfaction,
Scott A:
Like I say Larry, you are full of opinion which you just cannot justify. All
I am asking for, on this one, is a simple reference – but you are simply
unable to mange it.
Larry:
Oh, I'm able, all right. I could just go to the UN site or wherever and
quote demographics.
==+==
In the text above you appear to be saying that the UN is a *valid data source*.
So which of the above opinions is the correct one? Have you experienced a
change of opinion on this? Perhaps you can explain?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| (...) I don't see "who knows" as *accepting* anything. (...) No I wasn't, just that I was willing to quote it to shut YOU up because YOU accept those statistics apparently without question. Doesn't mean *I* do. But I think UN statistics on the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| (...) Oh, and another thing... nice tangent. Why not actually think about what was written, the way Christopher did, and respond with a reasoned, well thought out reply that shows that you aren't posting first and thinking later. That is a bit (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| 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: (URL) this is anecdotal of course, but there is a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 18-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
