4 ms·
That a current generation is under-equipped to use quantitative discourse is sad, but it also suggests that what communities need are experts and not evidence.
by traderjane 7y ago
That a current generation is under-equipped to use quantitative discourse is sad, but it also suggests that what communities need are experts and not evidence. They want to listen to a trustworthy leader and not conflicting data -- because data will conflict.
- airstrike 7y ago> but it also suggests that what communities need are experts and not evidence IMHO it actually suggests we need to improve the average person's educational level
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- glofish 7y agono, unfortunately, it is not about lack of education walk into any university, go from one faculty office to another, ask each professor what a p-value is and the overwhelming majority won't give you even a half-decent definition (I did this and can attest to it) you know why? because p-values are far more complex than people care to admit. Most statisticians cannot properly use it! There are ongoing "ideological wars" over what it actually means. Even the founders Fisher etc argued all the time about them. If you used p-value correctly, you would almost never be able to find anything, not even valid results. So people have to "bend" the truth a little bit. Nowadays more often than before, the truth gets bent out of shape.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoIf people were better educated regarding math and statistics, then it would become much less effective to "bend" the truth, especially with verification of experiments. But yes, society doesn't function well when people are corrupted.
- glofish 7y agoyou have to bend the truth because it would not work otherwise at all. Your distribution is not normal - it almost never is, now you have to argue that the method is still robust - there is no proof that is indeed robust as you claim. Then your measurement is a bit biased, see on Tuesdays the measurements do turn out a little bit differently, but most often does not matter, so you skimp over that as well. Statistics is the wrong approach because if you did everything correctly and stuck to the letter of it you only end up hurting yourself. You'll make fewer of the valid discoveries that you make when you bend it a bit. This is the fundamentally wrong thing about it! Strictly sticking to the rules will make you weaker. Bending statistics a little leads to more valid results.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoI don’t understand. Using statistics doesn’t imply using normal distributions.
- glofish 7y agoI just gave you an example, there are many statistical measures that have that particular requirement. If it is not normality then something else. Every statistical measure makes assumptions, most of which never quite hold true. That was my point. When someone uses statistics they always fudge things a bit. Many times does not matter, if you were stickler for "precision" it would not work.
- threwawasy1228 7y agoI think this is missing the point though, I've taken an upper level Statistics class, most people here with CS degrees have, but that doesn't help me understand whether a sociological study has a faulty component in its methodology. This is compounded by the culture of not reporting full data alongside papers, and the culture of writing papers in terse language.