Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you were familiar with the underlying science behind statistics (mathematical statistics), you'd have the answer to your question. .
Actually, being aware of statistics probably IS the cause of my problem--I teach the junk at Univ of Calif...BUT it STILL is a huge problem for me why people don't use numbers/metrics to make decisions or develop viewpoints. NOTE: I am not a psychologist.
Actually, being aware of statistics probably IS the cause of my problem--I teach the junk at Univ of Calif...BUT it STILL is a huge problem for me why people don't use numbers/metrics to make decisions or develop viewpoints. NOTE: I am not a psychologist.
Well, all I can say is after graduating in mathematics and getting a couple of semesters into an M. Stat. program, I quit. Once I found out how the math is actually applied, I was appalled. Actually, I should rephrase that: after I saw how the math could be applied. Frankly, once the actual programming, calculation training, and solid theory was out of the way, the courses consisted mainly of how to manipulate the numbers to say what your boss wants them to say. That wasn't for me.
I still have a couple of mathematical statistics texts. I love the theory. I love the clever way calculus, probability theory and other branches of math are used to derive the theory. I just distrust the way the data is manipulated and statistical techniques (and data) cherry picked in far too many cases. It's another case of the theory being a wonderful well of knowledge and the application often poisoning the well.
Well, all I can say is after graduating in mathematics and getting a couple of semesters into an M. Stat. program, I quit. Once I found out how the math is actually applied, I was appalled. Actually, I should rephrase that: after I saw how the math could be applied. Frankly, once the actual programming, calculation training, and solid theory was out of the way, the courses consisted mainly of how to manipulate the numbers to say what your boss wants them to say. That wasn't for me.
I still have a couple of mathematical statistics texts. I love the theory. I love the clever way calculus, probability theory and other branches of math are used to derive the theory. I just distrust the way the data is manipulated and statistical techniques (and data) cherry picked in far too many cases. It's another case of the theory being a wonderful well of knowledge and the application often poisoning the well.
Yeah--I agree too many people get enamored with "technique" and forget Occams Razor.
There was a time--like 30 or so years ago....I was working for the Navy, and they had a multi-million $ program to develop a "scientific" method to predict tomorrow's weather on a battle field. We spent MILLIONS. After it was all done we had a beautiful and elegant weather model and a bunch of scientific instruments in a 7' X 10' utility trailer. On the battle field in Nam, it was PROVEN to be more accurate than just saying, "tomorrow's weather will be like today's weather" PROVEN! As a matter of fact, it was exactly 0.07% better! (NOT 7%--but seven hundreths of a percent!) Occams Razor should have been used to give that project a shave!
Just because there are lots of ways to mis-use data and statistics doesn't mean that using numbers to describe our world is anything except useful.
If you asked a 1000 doctors--is that large enough of a sample size? Or would you have to have a much larger sample?
If you asked a 1000 neo-Nazis what they thought about race relations...or the first thousand people you asked happened to be neo-Nazis, how does that skew the figures?
No matter what question you ask regarding a person's opinions on a subject, you're going to get more than one answer. How is one any more valid than another? Do we only respect the majority view?
Yeah--I agree too many people get enamored with "technique" and forget Occams Razor.
There was a time--like 30 or so years ago....I was working for the Navy, and they had a multi-million $ program to develop a "scientific" method to predict tomorrow's weather on a battle field. We spent MILLIONS. After it was all done we had a beautiful and elegant weather model and a bunch of scientific instruments in a 7' X 10' utility trailer. On the battle field in Nam, it was PROVEN to be more accurate than just saying, "tomorrow's weather will be like today's weather" PROVEN! As a matter of fact, it was exactly 0.07% better! (NOT 7%--but seven hundreths of a percent!) Occams Razor should have been used to give that project a shave!
Just because there are lots of ways to mis-use data and statistics doesn't mean that using numbers to describe our world is anything except useful.
How feasible was it to produce it and use it under battlefield condtions? "Your task, soldier, is to keep this thing safe! It costs more than what you make in a year!"
Here is something that I don't understand. I've tried for 20 or 30 years to understand it, (well, honestly, maybe I haven't tried that hard!). Why is it that so many people make claims and refuse to use data to support their opinions? I don't get it. There is a lot of data available on the internet, most of it free for the taking....why don't people use it???? I am talking about data about poverty, quality of life, the economy, child rearing, retirement, ....and on and on....
Why is that? Are people inherrently too lazy to use data? Are they so uneducated that they can't? Are they afraid that data will contradict their opinions? WHY?
Well, you can find data, statistics, etc to support ANY opinion. It all depends on who compiled the data, who conducted (or paid for) the study, etc...
I do wish people would back up their "statistics show" with some statistics, though. LOL!
Kind of like that idiot Elisabeth Hasselback on The View.... she ALWAYS says "studies show" or "statistics say" and can never, ever back up what she says. I loved it one day when one of the other co-hosts said "can you show us those statistics?". EH shut up soooo fast and said "well, uh, I guess I'll have to research it". IDIOT.
The mark of intelligence and wisdom does not lie the ability to post links to sites that show incomplete statistics. It is the ability to gather, over time, the overview that can be obtained by a judicious application of some authoritative statistics, the interpretation of recognized researchers, a logical application of it to the topic at hand, and a willingness to view the information in a fair and impartial manner.
A debate arena does not call for a thick blanket of arcane statistics (or even less, a thin threadbare one), but rather a measured analysis of a topic based on a preponderance of objective observation.
The final wail of the defeated debater is "prove it".
The final wail of the defeated debater is "prove it".
No, actually the defeated debater is the one who can't prove anything, and relentlessly throws up smoke screens and obfuscations in an attempt to cover over the fact that he can't back up any of his claims.
No, actually the defeated debater is the one who can't prove anything, and relentlessly throws up smoke screens and obfuscations in an attempt to cover over the fact that he can't back up any of his claims.
Everybody can always google something that will back up their claims, but what's the point of such an exercise? If one doesn't do it, it's not because they "can't", but because doing so lends no particular credence to a questionable position.
I can google up a site that shows that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated, and another one that shows that sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of any criminal class. What is the point of offering either of them?
Everybody can always google something that will back up their claims, but what's the point of such an exercise? If one doesn't do it, it's not because they "can't", but because doing so lends no particular credence to a questionable position.
No, actually it is NOT possible to Google up something to back up all claims. You cannot provide some Googled site that proves that George Bush is a Democrat. Neither can you prove that Argentina is part of the United States.
The fact is, there are SOME members here (wink, wink) who spew their random opinions everywhere, expecting everyone to to accept them as true regardless of how insane said opinions are. And for some reason they think that the more words they use, the more convincing their case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How feasible was it to produce it and use it under battlefield condtions? "Your task, soldier, is to keep this thing safe! It costs more than what you make in a year!"
