Subject:
|
Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:10:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
209 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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!
> How you see this as rigorous is not clear to me. No evidence of the veracity
> of those statistics is given.
Did I say that?
> 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.
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
at least some rigour in the analysis. As Chris alludes, most reasonable
people mostly trust the UN stats as it is an organisation which is under
quite a lot of scrutiny. Do you not think the USA, UK etc would check the
data? You do know they are members of the UN?
No doubt there are those who do question the stats, and I'm happy to listen
to the basis of their argument(1). What is yours? (Saying the UN is the "New
world order" or some other paranoid fantasy will not wash).
> You apparently are snowed by the use of subordinate clauses and
> official sounding words, rather than convinced by careful reading.
Nope. You are wrong (again).
If you think the UN stats lack rigour. Show us. Its time to put-up or shut-up.
Scott A
(1) - as I did with Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
