To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 14133
14132  |  14134
Subject: 
Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:00:53 GMT
Viewed: 
311 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
If you think the UN stats lack rigour. Show us.

I did. Go to the top of the thread and *read* the article I cited.

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 statement."

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 work) came up with. That suggests that for that
particular statistic, there wasn't a lot of rigor behind it.

Nope. That suggets that one of the two may be wrong. Not that the UN is wrong.


Its time to put-up or shut-up.

I put up, you just didn't read it very carefully.

You should shut up, because a lot of people here (not just me) are tired of
putting up with YOU.

Yawn.

Go reread Dave's DebateCard(tm) and think about what it means.

I have read it. I have read the replies. I have read my e-mails also.

Scott A



Message has 3 Replies:
  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)
  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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR