Subject:
|
What, no answer? (Re: On the veracity of statistics in general)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:46:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
182 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > I was doing some Googletrolling with various search keywords, looking for
> > > > some scholarly work on the accuracy of UN statistics. It's a relatively
> > > > tough search...
> > >
> > > That's right, you don't like UN stats do you? 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.
> > > ==+==
> > >
> > > You *rejected* UN data.
> > >
> > > You never justified that, but nothing new there.
> > >
> > > But then late this happened:
> > >
> > > Scott A (quoting the a text in the Guardian):
> > > > > ==+==
> > > > > In May 1989, large-scale anthrax production began at a factory constructed
> > > > > at Al Hakam. Unscom estimated that Al Hakam manufactured 8,425 litres of
> > > > > anthrax bacteria during the course of 1990.
> > > > > ==+==
> > >
> > >
> > > Larry:
> > > (...)
> > > > (of course that cite just shows production capability, it could still be in
> > > > production, or Iraq could be totally innocent of this particular perfidy and
> > > > the site destroyed or out of production for years. Who knows?)
> >
> > > You *accepted* UN data.
> >
> > I don't see "who knows" as *accepting* anything.
>
> "of course that cite just shows production capability"
>
> You are squirming.
>
> The "who knows" does not question the data, only Iraq's culpability. At
> least that is how it reads to me.
What, no answer?
>
> >
> > > This apparent dichotomy worried me. So I did a quick
> > > search for "UN Larry Neanderthal" and I got this (from a LP spam thread):
> > >
> > > ==+==
> > > Scott A:
> > > This is all noise, BUT where did you get the averages from?
> > >
> > > Larry:
> > > Not going to play this game any more, sorry. I've justified my assertion
> > > that LUGNET members are more white and more male than the averages to my
> > > satisfaction,
> > >
> > > Scott A:
> > > Like I say Larry, you are full of opinion which you just cannot justify. All
> > > I am asking for, on this one, is a simple reference - but you are simply
> > > unable to mange it.
> > >
> > > Larry:
> > > Oh, I'm able, all right. I could just go to the UN site or wherever and
> > > quote demographics.
> > > ==+==
> > >
> > > In the text above you appear to be saying that the UN is a
> > > *valid data source*.
> >
> > No I wasn't, just that I was willing to quote it to shut YOU up because YOU
> > accept those statistics apparently without question.
>
> Can you justify why you thought this? BTW : I accept no statistics without
> question.
>
>
> > Doesn't mean *I* do.
>
> I think otherwise. Feel free to talk me around.
>
> >
> > But I think UN statistics on the demographics of an open country are a bit
> > more likely to be accurate than some of the much more hard to measure ones.
>
> So now some UN stats are ~OK~?
>
> Remember, you said this:
> ==+==
> > > I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless
> > > independently corroborated, and that's a blanket statement.
> ==+==
What, no answer?
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| (...) "of course that cite just shows production capability" You are squirming. The "who knows" does not question the data, only Iraq's culpability. At least that is how it reads to me. (...) Can you justify why you thought this? BTW : I accept no (...) (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
|
|
|
|
