Subject:
|
Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:52:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
217 times
|
| |
|
|
> In the page
> Scott recently cited that compared death rates among nations, I suspect that
> data was the result of fairly non-rigorous survey.
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:
http://www-nt.who.int/whosis/statistics/whsa/whsa_table4_asdr_discussion.cfm
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
