 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) The page gives a link to an overview of changes in the "WHO World Standard Population". The depth of overview makes me think that the survey was better than "non-rigorous". But I am open to challenge on that! See it here: (URL) A (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) If that's what you think I am saying I must not have said it very clearly. All I am trying to say is that the more often a statistic is said, the more likely it is for members of a certain large class of people (1) to accept it as true without (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) (UN Population Division, 1998)"), which are not linked to and not presented. How you see this as rigorous is not clear to me. No evidence of the veracity of those statistics is given. No discussion of them is given either. So if you think this (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) Did I say that? (...) Did I say that? You are putting words in my mouth again! My point was that the fact that they are not just accepting raw data from the countries mentioned, but are processing the data in some way, suggests to me there is (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) Well, it doesn't discuss _at all_ the method of collection. Without knowing how data were collected, you can't really judge the rigor. I was just guessing because I don't think the UN has the cash to really do that study right. Other UN (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) I did. Go to the top of the thread and *read* the article I cited. UN stats for landmines are an order of magnitude different than the numbers that a professional in the field of mine clearing (and who therefore would presumably want lots of (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) They could just be multiplying by two and it would fit that critereon. (...) I'm not sure of that...we're rather busy with our own pet projects. (...) Sort of...we don't pay our dues. (...) Just for the record, I'm one of the paranoids who is (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) I have not read it yet. You said you found it yesterday. What was your basis before then? When you said (04.10.01): "I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless independently corroborated, and that's a blanket (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) You are naughty Chris. (...) I think you are almost in the black now. Did GB not hand over $400,000,000 tax dollars a couple of weeks ago? (I could be wrong) (...) I hear what you are saying. I think that if it was used fully, it would work (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) Hmm. The word “impartial” does *not* come to mind. Is this the best you can do? Even if you are correct. You have produced a report which suggests that one statistic may be wrong. Your argument alleges that the UN systematically produces duff (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) Both may be wrong: (URL) wait a second. The UN says there are only 70 million landmines: (URL) you check the ICBL site you will see that the measure the size of the mined areas - not the amount of mines in them. Perhaps you can do better (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) Well, it seems obvious to me that if they have produced one study that is bogus, that all their work is suspect. Chris (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) As an aside, I don't think I actually said that. I think they're all SUSPECT but some of them may well be correct. Especially the ones that have better data collection behind them. The statistic that started this strikes me as being VERY hard (...) (23 years ago, 21-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) *Nope*, 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 (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What, no answer? (was Re: On the veracity of statistics in general)
|
|
(...) What, no answer? Scott A (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) Chris, 1. I think "bogus" is rather strong. 2. We do not know that that stat is duff(?) 3. Even if it is, we need to find where the error is from. Until then, I shall continue to view Larry's view as nothing more than convenient: ==+== I have (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
