3 ms·

I think you underestimate people a little bit. Let's take your example in a world of data accessibility : Research groups do spot interviews for fatalities in

by keefe 16y ago

I think you underestimate people a little bit. Let's take your example in a world of data accessibility : Research groups do spot interviews for fatalities in the iraq war. This data is submitted to the central repository. The government analyzes it, removes outliers emits report A. The ACLU analyzes it with the outliers, emits report B. Some people throw a fit about A, some people throw a fit about B. If the data were available, independent third parties could analyze it and say - hey ok, Fallujah was actually a valid data point so we present report B or whatever. You can't argue with data, not and maintain the appearance of sanity. Here's the data. Here's the interpretation. Even laypeople can understand this.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
I think my example may have been unclear, so let me give an analogy I picked up from a demographer who analyzed the study in question: "Imagine that if you took 32 water samples in your child's school and found that arsenic samples were 60% higher than the national standards, and you were 98% sure that you were above the standard. Then you took one more sample that was ten times higher than the standard. The logic endorsed by Michael Fumento is that we do nothing about the water supply because this outlier broadened our statistical confidence interval and we are not sure that we are above the national standard." If the data were available, independent third parties could analyze it and say - hey ok, Fallujah was actually a valid data point so we present report B or whatever. So, in the example above, do you really think that anyone claiming "oh, there's no reason to believe the school's water supply is dangerous since the confidence interval has been pushed out far enough that there is a minute possibility that the water is safe" is acting in good faith? I am curious: do you believe that any professional can make such claims in good faith and in accordance with their professional obligations? If the data were available, independent third parties could analyze it and say - hey ok, Fallujah was actually a valid data point so we present report B or whatever.
- keefe 16y ago
  >oh, there's no reason to believe the school's water supply is dangerous This is obviously false. I understand the idea of the confidence interval, I'd say the interpretation is : credible evidence for arsenic levels above standards, high variance in data requires further testing. Here is how I am saying it should work : All 33 samples are in a public database D. The R script that generates the statistical analysis is in that same database. Company C says because of results from R based on D I conclude X. Similarly for other companies. The bottom line is if the data is public and competent, unbiased observers exist (many of them do exist) then it becomes much harder to lie with stats.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

by keefe 16y ago

MichaelSalib 16y ago

I think my example may have been unclear, so let me give an analogy I picked up from a demographer who analyzed the study in question: "Imagine that if you took 32 water samples in your child's school and found that arsenic samples were 60% higher than the national standards, and you were 98% sure that you were above the standard. Then you took one more sample that was ten times higher than the standard. The logic endorsed by Michael Fumento is that we do nothing about the water supply because this outlier broadened our statistical confidence interval and we are not sure that we are above the national standard." If the data were available, independent third parties could analyze it and say - hey ok, Fallujah was actually a valid data point so we present report B or whatever. So, in the example above, do you really think that anyone claiming "oh, there's no reason to believe the school's water supply is dangerous since the confidence interval has been pushed out far enough that there is a minute possibility that the water is safe" is acting in good faith? I am curious: do you believe that any professional can make such claims in good faith and in accordance with their professional obligations? If the data were available, independent third parties could analyze it and say - hey ok, Fallujah was actually a valid data point so we present report B or whatever.

keefe 16y ago
>oh, there's no reason to believe the school's water supply is dangerous This is obviously false. I understand the idea of the confidence interval, I'd say the interpretation is : credible evidence for arsenic levels above standards, high variance in data requires further testing. Here is how I am saying it should work : All 33 samples are in a public database D. The R script that generates the statistical analysis is in that same database. Company C says because of results from R based on D I conclude X. Similarly for other companies. The bottom line is if the data is public and competent, unbiased observers exist (many of them do exist) then it becomes much harder to lie with stats.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]