Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:cd9337f4-8c39-4403-83a1-0c411f9401c6@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com <rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et
puis a déclaré :
> On Jan 14, 3:37 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> All the way up to this point I gave you credit for
>> above average probity and good will, but have now
>> revised my estimate downward. Anyone who disagrees
>> with you is automatically a rightwingnut. Do you
>> know what you are doing?
>>
>> A long time ago I decided I could learn from anybody,
>> and it has been a good decision. Looking forward to
>> hearing from you.
>
> I don't know you well enough to care whether you give me credit for
> probity and good will or not.
>
> Sandy lacks the background to determine whether my thinking is
> critical or not, particularly in the technical area of demographic
> estimation of mortality based on surveys, and the positions he
> imagines I hold are ones I do not. Accordingly, "babbling" turned out
> to be the appropriate description. Where have I ever accused Sandy of
> being a rightwingnut? You will not find it.

You misstate a premise to crown your numbers theology. Statistical analysis
provides no original knowledge. It serves as a shortcut for those who
choose either to let others do the fact collection for them, or who prefer
to perceive each instance as composed of a variety of countervailing forces
with a plurality result. The most incisive criticism is that a broad
statistical report provides zero certainty about the next relevant event
that would have been part of the distillation. A coin toss (or for
multiple, not dual potentials, a many-sided die) gives as much assurance.
Outliers are as welcome as deer ticks, yet both are admitted in reality.

Your thinking, in this thread, _demonstrates_ no critical perceptive
capability. Your memory may well be sound, however. And since no one seems
to take the time to evaluate your sources, thus no one cogently contradicts
your statements. If some fail to attribute proper names to related studies,
that is the kind of error one could politely observe and excuse, usually.

A good observer of events falling in his specialty already has knowledge.
The person who hopes for a confirmation of his prejudices will look to
statistical reporting for support, not for raw information. So, the events
featured in this thread - human deaths - occur in the singular each time,
and each time serve no function when abstracted, other than to eliminate the
abomination of each death and to prop up one or another political view.
------------------------------
APPENDIX (cut on dotted lines)
------------------------------
--
Sandy

Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
Je veux seulement ne pas être là
quand elle arrivera.

[Tom Kunich]

"Sandy" <leurrre@free.fr> wrote in message
news:478d2b73$0$4261$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> Dans le message de
>
> You misstate a premise to crown your numbers theology. Statistical
> analysis provides no original knowledge. It serves as a shortcut for
> those who choose either to let others do the fact collection for them, or
> who prefer to perceive each instance as composed of a variety of
> countervailing forces with a plurality result. The most incisive
> criticism is that a broad statistical report provides zero certainty about
> the next relevant event that would have been part of the distillation. A
> coin toss (or for multiple, not dual potentials, a many-sided die) gives
> as much assurance. Outliers are as welcome as deer ticks, yet both are
> admitted in reality.
>
> Your thinking, in this thread, _demonstrates_ no critical perceptive
> capability. Your memory may well be sound, however. And since no one
> seems to take the time to evaluate your sources, thus no one cogently
> contradicts your statements. If some fail to attribute proper names to
> related studies, that is the kind of error one could politely observe and
> excuse, usually.
>
> A good observer of events falling in his specialty already has knowledge.
> The person who hopes for a confirmation of his prejudices will look to
> statistical reporting for support, not for raw information. So, the
> events featured in this thread - human deaths - occur in the singular each
> time, and each time serve no function when abstracted, other than to
> eliminate the abomination of each death and to prop up one or another
> political view.

That is a completely correct observation though it does need to be said that
statistics demonstrate the chances of something being true not the
"certainty".

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Jan 15, 1:53 pm, "Sandy" <leurrre@free.fr> wrote:

> Your thinking, in this thread, _demonstrates_ no critical perceptive
> capability.

Well, in this I agree, but that's because I haven't needed to
demonstrate any. However, your previous statement was decidedly less
qualified. You wrote: "Actually, your thinking is far from critical;
it is basically closed-loop, Washingtonian, numbers-mean-what-I-say-if-
they-are-justifiable." That's a pretty blanket statement and I would
say that you have no standing to make that determination.

> Statistical analysis
> provides no original knowledge. It serves as a shortcut for those who
> choose either to let others do the fact collection for them, or who prefer
> to perceive each instance as composed of a variety of countervailing forces
> with a plurality result. The most incisive criticism is that a broad
> statistical report provides zero certainty about the next relevant event
> that would have been part of the distillation. A coin toss (or for
> multiple, not dual potentials, a many-sided die) gives as much assurance.
> Outliers are as welcome as deer ticks, yet both are admitted in reality.

If you knew as much about the methods, approaches, or purposes of
statistical analysis as you do about law, I'd take your opinion more
seriously. Worse, based on both of the previous paragraphs, it appears
that because I've made a few statistical arguments in the past you
think those are the only arguments I make. That's pretty shoddy
critical thinking. A more accurate description is that those are the
only arguments I've needed to make here.

[Phil Holman]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:13oqjijg5q0t7ae@corp.supernews.com...
> "Sandy" <leurrre@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:478d2b73$0$4261$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
>> Dans le message de
>>
>> You misstate a premise to crown your numbers theology. Statistical
>> analysis provides no original knowledge. It serves as a shortcut for
>> those who choose either to let others do the fact collection for
>> them, or who prefer to perceive each instance as composed of a
>> variety of countervailing forces with a plurality result. The most
>> incisive criticism is that a broad statistical report provides zero
>> certainty about the next relevant event that would have been part of
>> the distillation. A coin toss (or for multiple, not dual potentials,
>> a many-sided die) gives as much assurance. Outliers are as welcome as
>> deer ticks, yet both are admitted in reality.
>>
>> Your thinking, in this thread, _demonstrates_ no critical perceptive
>> capability. Your memory may well be sound, however. And since no
>> one seems to take the time to evaluate your sources, thus no one
>> cogently contradicts your statements. If some fail to attribute
>> proper names to related studies, that is the kind of error one could
>> politely observe and excuse, usually.
>>
>> A good observer of events falling in his specialty already has
>> knowledge. The person who hopes for a confirmation of his prejudices
>> will look to statistical reporting for support, not for raw
>> information. So, the events featured in this thread - human deaths -
>> occur in the singular each time, and each time serve no function when
>> abstracted, other than to eliminate the abomination of each death and
>> to prop up one or another political view.
>
> That is a completely correct observation though it does need to be
> said that statistics demonstrate the chances of something being true
> not the "certainty".
>
That's not a very good description Tom. Once an event has occurred,
probability doesn't come into it; it is what it is. For example, you can
always calculate the probabilities of the outcomes of a fair coin toss
but you can never calculate the probability of a coin being fair from
the outcomes.

5 heads in a row is significant at the 95% confidence level but this
does not mean there is a 95% chance the coin is fixed. It simply means,
out of 100 attempts with a fair coin to get 5 heads, on average you
would be successful only 5 times.

Phil H

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 15, 1:53 pm, "Sandy" <leurrre@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> Your thinking, in this thread, _demonstrates_ no critical perceptive
>> capability.
>
> Well, in this I agree, but that's because I haven't needed to
> demonstrate any. However, your previous statement was decidedly less
> qualified. You wrote: "Actually, your thinking is far from critical;
> it is basically closed-loop, Washingtonian, numbers-mean-what-I-say-if-
> they-are-justifiable." That's a pretty blanket statement and I would
> say that you have no standing to make that determination.
>
>> Statistical analysis
>> provides no original knowledge. It serves as a shortcut for those who
>> choose either to let others do the fact collection for them, or who prefer
>> to perceive each instance as composed of a variety of countervailing forces
>> with a plurality result. The most incisive criticism is that a broad
>> statistical report provides zero certainty about the next relevant event
>> that would have been part of the distillation. A coin toss (or for
>> multiple, not dual potentials, a many-sided die) gives as much assurance.
>> Outliers are as welcome as deer ticks, yet both are admitted in reality.
>
> If you knew as much about the methods, approaches, or purposes of
> statistical analysis as you do about law, I'd take your opinion more
> seriously. Worse, based on both of the previous paragraphs, it appears
> that because I've made a few statistical arguments in the past you
> think those are the only arguments I make. That's pretty shoddy
> critical thinking. A more accurate description is that those are the
> only arguments I've needed to make here.


I'd say to Sandy perhaps what my Norwegian-born crown and bridge
clinical professor said to us when we questioned his knowledge:
(imagine here a Norse accent)
"Don't tell your father how to make children!"

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001