Subject:
|
Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:41:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
336 times
|
| |
|
|
Scott AIn lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > 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 statistics.
>
> 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.
*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 politically
correct rather than actually correct.
==+==
> Especially the ones that have better
> data collection behind them. The statistic that started this strikes me as
> being VERY hard to verify independently.
So it seams. The best you can do to support your view is pretty dam poor. I
have supported my view with a multitude of sources. On this, I have come to
think that you are either stubborn, or plain stupid. Which is it?
>
> > > I'm not clear how you have reached that
> > > conclusion. Perhaps you could explain?
> >
> > Well, it seems obvious to me that if they have produced one study that is
> > bogus, that all their work is suspect.
>
> That's my point exactly.
Read your own post!
>
> I said it was a *hard* thing to go googletrolling for, yet I did
> nevertheless find a few examples of wild variances (and posted one of them)
> in 10 minutes of searching.
Larry your "examples" were laughable, and you know it.
> Maybe that is all there was because I'm an
> awesome searcher. But I rather thing I may have been using the wrong search
> terms, though, and there are lots more out there but I haven't found them.
>
> Searches at their own (UN orgs such as WHO) sites did not reveal any
> writeups of generic methodology or studies of accuracy they carried out on
> their data but that does not prove anything other than that the searches I
> used didn't find anything.
This sounds like a conspiracy on the part of the new world order. Have you
seen any black helicopters lately? Stop looking for them, and have a look at
this little site:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd/sd_economic.htm
>
> I am NOT in the "new world order/black helicopters" camp (except when I am
> playing Illuminati).
Really?
> I don't accuse the UN of coordinated and deliberate
> distortion, or some vast conspiracy to take over the world.
Read your own words:
==+==
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 politically
correct rather than actually correct.
==+==
To write that that without any firm basis is either very convenient for
your week argument or utter paranoia.
> They aren't that
> powerful! Or competent.>
> I just doubt their statistical and analysis competence to the point where I
> don't think it's likely they are anywhere near close to 100% accurate,
Really. How close then; 99.9%, 90% or 50%? Can you prove that?
Scott A
> and I
> doubt their motives to the point where I expect individual internal
> departments to distort results to further their own ends.
>
> We do that here too you know, as the post starting the thread points out.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
