10 ms·

>Actually working in data science for a living for a few years, my experience is that the practical thing to do is to drop the outliers from your dataset The w

>Actually working in data science for a living for a few years, my experience is that the practical thing to do is to drop the outliers from your dataset The website's numbers are not a dataset. Again, it is made up numbers by a random website. There is no evidence behind it at all. The study's numbers do not have outliers, you only want there to be an outlier by comparing the dataset to completely made up numbers with no basis in fact.

beagle3 12y ago
> completely made up numbers with no basis in fact. Did we look at the same website? They give the formula by which they derived the numbers, based on "standard" nutritional data for those foods. It's not a dataset per-se, it is (supposedly) a simple and easily reproducible computation of a widely available dataset. (No, I did not try to reproduce though I would if I were going to take any action based on this). Why would you assume it is random? And I ask, again, if you can point me to the two independent studies that confirm potato's properties, because I can only find one.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  >Why would you assume it is random? Because it is? If I just say "here's how filling food is: calories * pi * r2", that doesn't give you a data set, it gives you made up numbers.
  - beagle3 12y ago
    Suit yourself. The "calorie count" is just as invented according to your definition -- if you are not familiar with how calories are measured, educate yourself (and if you believe it is science, then make sure you can answer the question "then how come gasoline (12kc/gr) or paper (a carbohydrate) are not human edible", and "when and how were atwater factors derived". If you can answer these things and believe anything in nutrition is not "invented science" by your definition, then we have differing definitions of what constitutes science. And if you believe (as I do) that all of this is entirely unscientific, but some of it is sort of useful - than what exactly are you arguing?

beagle3 12y ago

> completely made up numbers with no basis in fact. Did we look at the same website? They give the formula by which they derived the numbers, based on "standard" nutritional data for those foods. It's not a dataset per-se, it is (supposedly) a simple and easily reproducible computation of a widely available dataset. (No, I did not try to reproduce though I would if I were going to take any action based on this). Why would you assume it is random? And I ask, again, if you can point me to the two independent studies that confirm potato's properties, because I can only find one.

imanaccount247 12y ago
>Why would you assume it is random? Because it is? If I just say "here's how filling food is: calories * pi * r2", that doesn't give you a data set, it gives you made up numbers.
- beagle3 12y ago
  Suit yourself. The "calorie count" is just as invented according to your definition -- if you are not familiar with how calories are measured, educate yourself (and if you believe it is science, then make sure you can answer the question "then how come gasoline (12kc/gr) or paper (a carbohydrate) are not human edible", and "when and how were atwater factors derived". If you can answer these things and believe anything in nutrition is not "invented science" by your definition, then we have differing definitions of what constitutes science. And if you believe (as I do) that all of this is entirely unscientific, but some of it is sort of useful - than what exactly are you arguing?