We're number one!!!!!!!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Major448

Silver
Sep 8, 2010
2,645
108
63
Africaida said:
... We want to learn :smoke:
Click to expand...

Aida .... I know that there is a tendency for someone who is "trained" in the technology and sciences area to focus on the numbers. (And I am certainly not pointing this at you.) But there is more to a "study" than just statistics.

There is an area comprised of "research methodology". That portion concerns itself with the overall design of the study ... the design of the questions ... the demographics to be sampled ... the sample size ... and a number of other factors. After the statistics, there is even an art to how the numbers get "tabulated" and interpreted.

Statistics may be the "science" of the study ... but those "other" things are the art of the study. Raw data is only a part of the overall picture, and are only as good as the research design and methodology.

We all know that some studies can be wrong. We all know that some studies can be purposely slanted. But not all are, of course. And, those who really do have the full knowledge "and experience" with such things can have a rather lucrative and rewarding career. Obviously ... it takes more than a graduate level statistics course to be able to do these things.

At least, that's what I was taught when I learned about this stuff while completing grad school ..... almost 40 years ago ..... ;)
 
C

Chip

Platinum
Jul 25, 2007
16,772
429
0
Santiago
Major448 said:
Obviously ... it takes more than a graduate level statistics course to be able to do these things.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't take a graduate course in statistics to understand enough to ask questions instead of accepting everything one reads. Then again, as you yourself pointed out in another thread, Americans less and less are able to think on their own, as evidenced perfectly by this thread...
 
E

expatsooner

Bronze
Aug 7, 2004
712
11
0
I don't know about the general "dumbing down" of Americans but I do know that quite often a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.... I have a B.S. for my undergraduate degree and my master's coursework also included a class in statistical analysis; however I also know that a grand total of two stats classes do not qualify me as a stats expert which is why I am always keen for people to clarify their positions in a concise manner. After all just because I read your opinion doesn't mean I should blindly accept your premise. :)

As someone who has been an educator for decades I find it humorous when people throw out long quotes from the works of others without being able to paraphrase the information, use outdated and not generally accepted terms, i.e. "third world" and provide specific data without being able to show justification for their position "I would expect a fudge factor of 30% to be used, not 130%" that justification should include specific data and/or formula; not something nebulous like "a typical Catholic approach" which will not be understood clearly by the majority of the world's population as Catholics make up approximately 15 to 17 percent of the total world population (World religions by the numbers)

I really don't understand the difference a " typical Catholic approach to the deceased" would make to the numbers. Does this mean that we need to adjust for a "typical Muslim approach to the deceased" when looking at group four countries such as KSA and UAE?
 
C

Chip

Platinum
Jul 25, 2007
16,772
429
0
Santiago
expatsooner said:
I don't know about the general "dumbing down" of Americans but I do know that quite often a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.... I have a B.S. for my undergraduate degree and my master's coursework also included a class in statistical analysis; however I also know that a grand total of two stats classes do not qualify me as a stats expert which is why I am always keen for people to clarify their positions in a concise manner. After all just because I read your opinion doesn't mean I should blindly accept your premise. :)

As someone who has been an educator for decades I find it humorous when people throw out long quotes from the works of others without being able to paraphrase the information, use outdated and not generally accepted terms, i.e. "third world" and provide specific data without being able to show justification for their position "I would expect a fudge factor of 30% to be used, not 130%" that justification should include specific data and/or formula; not something nebulous like "a typical Catholic approach" which will not be understood clearly by the majority of the world's population as Catholics make up approximately 15 to 17 percent of the total world population (World religions by the numbers)

I really don't understand the difference a " typical Catholic approach to the deceased" would make to the numbers. Does this mean that we need to adjust for a "typical Muslim approach to the deceased" when looking at group four countries such as KSA and UAE?
Click to expand...

Does one really need to have a phd in statistical analysis and modeling to see this methodology has issues????

We are talking about a GENERIC DISEASE AND ACCIDENT modeling equation published in 1913 for goodness sakes and ADJUSTMENT factors that have a range of more than 100%.

Sometimes people should use their own brain instead of letting others think for them. :)
 
E

expatsooner

Bronze
Aug 7, 2004
712
11
0
Chip said:
Does one really need to have a phd in statistical analysis and modeling to see this methodology has issues????

We are talking about a GENERIC DISEASE AND ACCIDENT modeling equation published in 1913 for goodness sakes and ADJUSTMENT factors that have a range of more than 100%.

Sometimes people should use their own brain instead of letting others think for them. :)
Click to expand...


I see, so of course the age of a piece of work nullifies its content - a lot of kids are going to be thrilled that they no longer have to struggle with Pythagorean theorem and its attendant proofs anymore.

While I do love a good red herring and ad hominem based rebuttal as much as the next debater I had honestly hoped for a better reply.
 
C

Chip

Platinum
Jul 25, 2007
16,772
429
0
Santiago
expatsooner said:
I see, so of course the age of a piece of work nullifies its content - a lot of kids are going to be thrilled that they no longer have to struggle with Pythagorean theorem and its attendant proofs anymore.

While I do love a good red herring and ad hominem based rebuttal as much as the next debater I had honestly hoped for a better reply.
Click to expand...

You ignored the issue that this model is used for diseases too. Please explain how that is relevant.

Also, there remains the issue of the "fudge factor" being so varied.
 
T

the gorgon

Platinum
Sep 16, 2010
33,997
83
0
expatsooner said:
I see, so of course the age of a piece of work nullifies its content - a lot of kids are going to be thrilled that they no longer have to struggle with Pythagorean theorem and its attendant proofs anymore.

While I do love a good red herring and ad hominem based rebuttal as much as the next debater I had honestly hoped for a better reply.
Click to expand...

then you must be new here.
 
E

expatsooner

Bronze
Aug 7, 2004
712
11
0
You are ignoring that this paper addresses mathematical formulas to calculate the incident rates of accidents and diseases and that this paper is only one of the sources used to justify the formula used to compile the data in the study being debated.

But to get back to my original questions - what formula did you use to reach the 30% variable you deem more appropriate (personal observation of DR traffic doesn't count) What effect does religious practices make on the numbers and how do you adjust for the factors related to religious practices?
 
T

the gorgon

Platinum
Sep 16, 2010
33,997
83
0
expatsooner said:
No not new but I do enjoy trying to see things from the perspective of others and a lively debate is good for your cognitive health. I guess I was hoping for more than could be reasonably expected. :)
Click to expand...

well, your adversary seems to have left the building. he appears to be having second thoughts concerning his erstwhile sense of self assurance vis a vis the rectitude of his academic position. i empathize with him. he who fights, and runs away, etc, etc.
 
C

Chip

Platinum
Jul 25, 2007
16,772
429
0
Santiago
expatsooner said:
You are ignoring that this paper addresses mathematical formulas to calculate the incident rates of accidents and diseases and that this paper is only one of the sources used to justify the formula used to compile the data in the study being debated.

But to get back to my original questions - what formula did you use to reach the 30% variable you deem more appropriate (personal observation of DR traffic doesn't count) What effect does religious practices make on the numbers and how do you adjust for the factors related to religious practices?
Click to expand...

Mathematical formulas are only as good as the person who employs them, and I should know as that is how I make my living.

Regarding the record keeping that I referenced, can you name any other organization that has birth and death records that go back almost a millenia?

As far as the "30% variable" MISNOMER, you are confused as is clear by your lack of understanding of technical terms so I think I'll just let you and the peanut gallery think you've won this one rather than going around in circles, repeating and repeating and repeating....
 
E

expatsooner

Bronze
Aug 7, 2004
712
11
0
"I would expect a fudge factor of 30%" sorry that I replaced the technical term "fudge factor" in your quote with the word variable.

I am disappointed that you seem to take an intellectual exchange of questions and answers down to a personal level and make it into a win/lose situation instead of regarding it as a chance to debate and exchange information. I love a good debate and enjoy learning new things from those with differing viewpoints, it is not a personal thing against anyone.

But I do think that you are right, a never ending circle of no straight answers from you has made this a rather boring exchange.

"Mathematical formulas are only as good as the person who employs them, and I should know as that is how I make my living.

Regarding the record keeping that I referenced, can you name any other organization that has birth and death records that go back almost a millenia?"

Although the above quote is what I would consider a non sequitur to the topic at hand I would like to respond. As you rightly pointed out formulas are dependent on the way a person employs them and by the same token record keeping in and of itself is of no value. It is how you interpret and apply the information contained in the records that counts. I am not sure what a millennia of church records has to do with a modern study of traffic fatalities and the placing of the DR in the number one ranked spot. An explanation of how you would use a small localized portion of that millennia of record keeping to change the "fudge factor" from 130% to 30% is all I was asking............
 
T

the gorgon

Platinum
Sep 16, 2010
33,997
83
0
frank recktenwald said:
I didn't know plumbers use math for their work. So that's why I never could become one, I stink at math. It shattered my dreams of owning a moped in the DR. ;)
Click to expand...

why, frank; whatever do you mean? plumbers have to resort to esoteric mathematical modelling in order to decide whether to use pvc pipe, or copper tubing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom