STATISTICS AND ASSUMPTIONS
I know Flux doesn't post very often but I always enjoy reading his take on stuff. Here's some new writing on statistics and assumptions at Fluxistan
posted by deviousdiva @ 12/30/2005 09:16:00 PM
3 comments
THIS IS NOT MY COUNTRY
The only thing necessary for the persistence of evil is for enough good people to do nothing.
Friday, December 30, 2005
IMPORTANT
Previous Posts
- RANDOM STORIES OF RACISM
- WHAT DO YOU THINK (TWO)
- CHRISTMAS BREAK
- WHAT DO YOU THINK?
- INTERNATIONAL MIGRANTS DAY
- MOSQUE UPDATE
- ASYLUM BETRAYED
- ASYLUM NIGHTMARES
- ONE MAN'S STORY
- COMPLAINING EXPATS
Categories
- Anti-semitism
- Asylum
- Blogs
- Children
- Education
- Fascism
- Greece
- Homophobia
- Human Rights
- Immigration
- Law
- Migrant
- Multicultural
- Neo Nazi
- Personal
- Politics
- Racism
- Religion
- Roma
- Sport
- Tolerance
- Women
- Xenophobia
Lists and Logos
Just for Fun
His last two posts are pure bullshit and erroneous strawmen. If I had the inclination to prove him wrong, I would.
I would not say bull shit, and I only read the statistics one, but I do have doubts about his logic in trying to refute statistics.
Certainly it is possible, and may have happened on many occasions, that the methodology behind a statistic is flawed, imperfect beyond what is "reasonable," but, as far as I know, it is usually from an extrapolation using a sampling method tested frequently for approximate accuracy before beginning regular use as a means toward a reputable statistic.
Also, his story about the geneticist whom must worry about the influence of his funding financier, its bias and self interest, is more a statement on the nature of some persons to be "greedy" or "unethically political, and racist" over the advancement of science. It is a suggestion of selfishness that he does not prove exists in the company in question. While the basis he states for the ceasing of funds is possible, I doubt it can be said to be the only one. Unless they are refuted as likely possibilites and shown as selfish in and of themselves (subjective), his argument is incomplete.
He appears to be saying, "Corporations are greedy and fund research solely for the advancement of themselves, and this is an absolute that affects all companies whether or not they have ties to examples of actual corrupt corporations."
Ironically, he would then be using an unquantified sample to imply an absolute fact.
Or I just said a load of nonsense.
If you don't have the inclination to prove him wrong, why comment that he writes bullshit? That just seems like you are being antagonistic just for the sake of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home