Subject:
|
Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:42:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
190 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > 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
This is a cite of some other statistics ("the latest UN assessment for 1998
(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 sort of page is an example of rigor, or of proof of
validity, I'm not too surprised at your uncritical acceptance of all UN
stats. You apparently are snowed by the use of subordinate clauses and
official sounding words, rather than convinced by careful reading.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
