3 ms·

I'm a scientist, we have a saying in my field. Garbage in, garbage out. If the data from China are wrong, then including them in calculations will make all of y

I'm a scientist, we have a saying in my field. Garbage in, garbage out. If the data from China are wrong, then including them in calculations will make all of your calculations worse. We know that China's numbers are not only suspect but actively manipulated, as such we should not be using their data for calculations full stop.

JadeNB 7y ago
GIGO is a good principle to keep in mind, but nobody's numbers can be absolutely trusted here; every government has incentives, both from good motives and ill, to make things look as good as possible—and even when there is no conscious bias, various decisions will at least mean that numbers from different countries are probably not really comparable. Thus the normally scientifically sound principle of not allowing in suspect data is indistinguishable, in terms of its effect, from simply ignoring the available data. Better to regard the data as suspect, and do as much statistical analysis as possible to deal with it. (I think, for example, of data gathered on the enemy during wartime, which are also constantly somewhere between unreliable and falsified; but we use them anyway, knowing that they cannot be completely trusted.)
chiefalchemist 7y ago
As a scientist, it's also wise to question the data. Where it came from. If there was motive for that data bring falsified / manipulated, etc. In the context of Communist China then it's unreasonable not to be suspect. And yes, the USA's data should be questioned as well. But the OP link was China.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  > As a scientist, it's also wise to question the data. Where it came from. If there was motive for that data bring falsified / manipulated, etc. This appears to be phrased as if disagreeing with cmendel, but it seems rather to be in agreement: > We know that China's numbers are not only suspect but actively manipulated, as such we should not be using their data for calculations full stop.

JadeNB 7y ago

GIGO is a good principle to keep in mind, but nobody's numbers can be absolutely trusted here; every government has incentives, both from good motives and ill, to make things look as good as possible—and even when there is no conscious bias, various decisions will at least mean that numbers from different countries are probably not really comparable. Thus the normally scientifically sound principle of not allowing in suspect data is indistinguishable, in terms of its effect, from simply ignoring the available data. Better to regard the data as suspect, and do as much statistical analysis as possible to deal with it. (I think, for example, of data gathered on the enemy during wartime, which are also constantly somewhere between unreliable and falsified; but we use them anyway, knowing that they cannot be completely trusted.)

chiefalchemist 7y ago

As a scientist, it's also wise to question the data. Where it came from. If there was motive for that data bring falsified / manipulated, etc. In the context of Communist China then it's unreasonable not to be suspect. And yes, the USA's data should be questioned as well. But the OP link was China.

JadeNB 7y ago
> As a scientist, it's also wise to question the data. Where it came from. If there was motive for that data bring falsified / manipulated, etc. This appears to be phrased as if disagreeing with cmendel, but it seems rather to be in agreement: > We know that China's numbers are not only suspect but actively manipulated, as such we should not be using their data for calculations full stop.