Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Oct 2006 08:09 In article <Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehd5rn$8qk_009(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data. > > >....and because you have absolutely no background in or understanding of >statistics, your "common sense" would be wrong. Please do learn whereof you >speak, before you speak. The gaps in your knowledge in areas that are key >to a lot of the points you insist are right, is phenomenal and appalling. > > >> I don't know it's wrong. I do know enough that bad data will >> never show any statistical significance. > >Don't you think *they* are in a better position to judge the quality of >their data than *you* are, Nope. Not when it's for the BBC comsumption. > since your understanding of statistics is >essentially non-existent? And don't you think that the peers who reviewed >the article and allowed it to be published might also be just a tiny tad >more knowledgeable of statistics than you are? This is not a question of ability of applying statistics. It is a question of the agility of applying statistics. I am sceptic of the agility. > > >>>Yes, you do not know enough. Have you studied statistics, sampling, data >>>analysis? >> >> Yes. A long time ago. > > >Then you've clearly forgotten everything you learned. I can certainly open my stat books and yak a good game of presenting the same data point as a dozen. In the olden days, I'd just dup 12 cards. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Oct 2006 08:11 In article <JaednSrRmpdFE6fYRVnyhA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >news:Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ehd5rn$8qk_009(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>> I don't know it's wrong. I do know enough that bad data will >>> never show any statistical significance. >> >> Don't you think *they* are in a better position to judge the quality of >> their data than *you* are, since your understanding of statistics is >> essentially non-existent? And don't you think that the peers who reviewed >> the article and allowed it to be published might also be just a tiny tad >> more knowledgeable of statistics than you are? > >When BAH posted this, it struck me as a massive example of how really closed >minded some people can be. She hasn't read the data, she has no idea about >the methods, she doesn't know who reviewed it (etc), yet she does know that >bad data will spoil stats (which is true). She has taken the one thing she >does know and assumed it to be the case because the answer is not one she >wants. > >Amazing that BAH claims to have any scientific background at all. I don't. Biology and math were my majors; chemistry was my minor. I didn't work in the science field. I thought I made that clear. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Oct 2006 08:12 In article <453A326F.6680CA41(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >> >> >> >They gave their 95% confidence interval. >> >> >> >> The news said that the questions that were asked was if >> >> anybody knew anybody who died. Adding these up will not >> >> give a correct count. >> > >> >The 'news' was wrong then. >> > >> >In most cases ( ~90 % ) a death certificate was shown. >> >> And the death certificates said that all the deaths were >> due to US killing them? > >Not at all. > >The survey was to determine death rates from all causes pre and post >war. Quite simple really. > >Pre-war of course there weren't any deaths from either US killings or >any insurgents. How odd. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Oct 2006 08:15 In article <453A5164.754CBC24(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> >> > The survey was to determine death rates from all causes pre and post >> > war. Quite simple really. >> > >> > Pre-war of course there weren't any deaths from either US killings or >> > any insurgents. >> >> And of course you faithfully believe Saddam's historical >> records as being accurate and true! Bwahahahahahaha > >The figures for the pre-war era encountered by the group tally with CIA >figures ! What era? And there aren't death certificates for those in hidden mass graves. So any person asked about people they know who died couldn't have shown a certificate. This person who disappeared could have been reported by 10 households. Do you not see a problem in collected unique datums? /BAH
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 09:26
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehfmrv$8qk_009(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <IKudnYawzLIroafYRVnyjQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehd5rn$8qk_009(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data. >> >>Eh? Why would common sense demand this? > > I tried to explain why. Apparently it was written in Martian. Apparently it was. <snip> |