Evidence and Statistics!!!!

[tbaldwin]

It never fails to depress me just how conservative self procalimed radicals can be. 2 areas people expose themselves over and over again is, when they are starting to lose an arguement they come out with crap like.... Hard Evidence please! or Stats to back that up.
Or even worse they post up some "evidence" or "stats" themselves.
That the stats or evidence is produced by bias people the kind of dismiss.

They are so brainwashed by the idea that stats are important,more important than a well constucted argeument.
Now the Nazis would have had far more stats about the concentration camps than their opponents.... Did that make them right.
Well if you followed the logic of some people on u75,you could end up thinking so....

People routinely trot out stats from campaign and pressure groups.
Usually so pointless. The one stat that most of these charities and pressure groups seem most reluctant to point out is how much their top earners take home.

Charities and the public sector waste billions on a load of wank. They are parasites but dont ask me for stats to back it up.
I can only truly give the evidence of my own experiences and those of people i know. But in the end that is the best kind of evidence.

 

[belboid]

yup, your one persons opinion is the best evidence there is.

facts? stupid bloody things.

 

[tbaldwin]

yup, your one persons opinion is the best evidence there is.

facts? stupid bloody things.

The truth though is facts are open to question and many stats are just made up. There are different sats for how many homeless people,how many racist attacks..etc etc ..... all made up.

 

[bluestreak]

everyone knows you don't need evidence when you just know you're right. evidence and stats are for nazis, real revolutionaries don't need any sort of proof at all.

 

[belboid]

all using different methodology - a somewhat different thing.

a 'well constructed argument' is merely a set of statements that flow logically - if they bare no resemblance to fact, they can be as beautiful as you like, but still crap.

If we don't start with facts, we cannot construct a meaningful argument at all.

 

[tbaldwin]

everyone knows you don't need evidence when you just know you're right. evidence and stats are for nazis, real revolutionaries don't need any sort of proof at all.

What proof can you produce to show how much public money has been wasted in the last few years.

Different groups just make up stats as it suits them. Regeneration projects routinely do it. Is that not important?

 

[Pigeon]

Now the Nazis would have had far more stats about the concentration camps than their opponents.... Did that make them right.

Sweet. Fucking. Jesus.

 

[bluestreak]

What proof can you produce to show how much public money has been wasted in the last few years.

Different groups just make up stats as it suits them. Regeneration projects routinely do it. Is that not important?

what proof have you got that they make it up? i think that's a ghastly slur on the good name of regeneration projects. however, if of course you can prove that this happens then i'll happily side with you on this one.

 

[Pigeon]

what proof have you got that they make it up? i think that's a ghastly slur on the good name of regeneration projects. however, if of course you can prove that this happens then i'll happily side with you on this one.

And I suppose you'll be wanting him to prove it with facts, will you?

FASCIST!

 

[tbaldwin]

what proof have you got that they make it up? i think that's a ghastly slur on the good name of regeneration projects. however, if of course you can prove that this happens then i'll happily side with you on this one.

Happens all the tome different employment projects all claim the same person as an outcome. Its a joke and ive seen it over and over again..

 

[bluestreak]

Happens all the tome different employment projects all claim the same person as an outcome. Its a joke and ive seen it over and over again..

i don't believe you. but like i said, if you can offer me some evidence then i'll happily join your crusade. cos, you see, i don't know you from adam and you might be lying. but if you can show that you're telling the truth then me and you, we got a deal.

 

[Isambard]

Jesus, can't bear your last threads dropping off the edge eh tbaldwin so you had to start another to massage your own over inflated ego. If I hadn't have lent Dub my last fiver i'd lay money down exactly the way ths ones going to go.

I might come back in at page 25 or so when you've completely disappeared up your own arse.

 

[greenman]

Don Quixote rides again

 

[tbaldwin]

i don't believe you. but like i said, if you can offer me some evidence then i'll happily join your crusade. cos, you see, i don't know you from adam and you might be lying. but if you can show that you're telling the truth then me and you, we got a deal.

The problem is that evidence and stats are made up and people accept them all the time. How many Homeless people are there in the UK? How many Racist Attacks? How Many Economic Migrants? Depends who you ask...


And how much do GPs earn, read 2 widely different stats in the last week.....
One said they earn on average £124,000 a year the other said that some GPs can earn up to £120,000 a year

Lies,Damned Lies and Statistics.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

The Labour Party Manifesto 1997:

new Labour because Britain deserves better
Britain will be better with new Labour

...

Open government

Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and defective policy decisions. The Scott Report on arms to Iraq revealed Conservative abuses of power. We are pledged to a Freedom of Information Act, leading to more open government, and an independent National Statistical Service.

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/lab97.htm

The response of the Royal Statistical Society to the government's actions in 1999:

Building Trust on shaky foundations: Government's statistical proposals are deeply flawed

for immediate use

Monday 18 October 1999

(RSS media response to the Government's White Paper)

The Royal Statistical Society today expressed its extreme disappointment at the very limited scope of the Government's proposals to guarantee the future integrity of National Statistics. Only the statistics currently produced by the Office for National Statistics will automatically come under the new arrangements. Statistics produced and published by individual ministries will be included only "as appropriate" "with the agreement of Ministers".
Denise Lievesley, President of the RSS, commenting on the White Paper today, said:
"The White Paper is good as far as it goes. But there are two gaping holes:
• First, individual ministries are not included. Many of the most important Government data series, including hospital waiting lists, school league tables, and crime statistics, are excluded unless the relevant Minister determines otherwise.
• Second, the proposals are not to be enshrined in legislation. It will be open to the present or any future government to alter the arrangements should statistical integrity become inconvenient."
Public confidence in the objectivity and independence of the national statistical system is vital for a healthy democracy. Statistical information must be seen to come from an authoritative independent source or its value in the public debate, and confidence in the debate itself, will be eroded.
The Royal Statistical Society was therefore enthusiastic when the Labour Party adopted a manifesto pledge to create an independent national statistical service, and welcomed the speedy publication of a green paper to build on the manifesto pledge. But that was in February 1998 and since then we have heard nothing until today when a White Paper "Building Trust in Statistics" has been published. There was no prior notice of this publication, a small restricted press conference and it has arrived only a matter of hours before a (rare) debate in Parliament on Official Statistics.
Despite an introduction which expresses a commitment to deliver official statistics which the public can trust, the White Paper is deeply flawed. National Statistics has been defined much too narrowly. Only the outputs of the Office for National Statistics are automatically included. Thus Health, Education, the Environment, areas where the public have enormous concerns, are all excluded from these arrangements. The power of the newly established Statistics Commission will not be sufficient to insist on extensions to other ministries.
Although the White Paper commits itself to offering "a window on the work and performance of government" (1.1) and to promoting "joined up statistics" (B.14) the danger is that there will be less accountability and coherence even than now: currently the Director of the Office for National Statistics has a role in relation to the Government Statistical Service whereas the National Statistician and the Statistical Commission have not been assigned authority for statistics falling outside the scope of 'National Statistics'.
The Royal Statistical Society welcomes the formation of a Statistics Commission but has the gravest concerns that it will not have enough teeth. The Commission must have the right to be informed and the power to comment. It is essential that the Commission is properly resourced and its work supported by the Government. High calibre members and staff must be recruited who are committed to the improvement of the relevance and value of national statistics to foster a more open society.

White Paper reference: Building Trust in Statistics, Cm 4412, October 1999

www.rss.org.uk/docs/Building Trust on shaky foundations.doc

 

[Uma]

People routinely trot out stats from campaign and pressure groups.
Usually so pointless. The one stat that most of these charities and pressure groups seem most reluctant to point out is how much their top earners take home.

What's the expression "lies, dam lies and statistics". Stay well clear, I have to trot em out nearly everyday and it drives me mad. As you say, first hand accounts are best, it's just that people think that stats which can show trends are more reliable.

 

[In Bloom]

And how much do GPs earn, read 2 widely different stats in the last week.....
One said they earn on average £124,000 a year the other said that some GPs can earn up to £120,000 a year

Oh good God, a small discrepency between the results of two different studies

That definately proves that all statistics are completely worthless!

Do us a favour tbaldwin, yes, statistics can be manipulated in such a way as to mislead, which is why whenever you cite a study or a set of data, you have to look very carefully at the methodology involved and draw your information from a wide variety of sources. Annecdotal evidence is useless for understanding overall trends.

 

[chooch]

a well constucted argeument

Like some statistics are ill-defined or sometimes used out of context or without accompanying methodology, therefore all statistics are wank?

 

[In Bloom]

"You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true"

 

[Bob_the_lost]

And i'm betting on the windmills.

I don't think tbaldwin is saying that all statistics are bad and fundamentally useless, he's merely complaining about poorly executed studies and woolly language and phrasing that lets people dazle you with misleading bollocks.

Or i'd hope so, otherwise i'm going to have to kill him and any offspring he has for the good of all mankind (and of course our noble lizard overlords, long may they rule)

 

[In Bloom]

And i'm betting on the windmills.

I don't think tbaldwin is saying that all statistics are bad and fundamentally useless, he's merely complaining about poorly executed studies and woolly language and phrasing that lets people dazle you with misleading bollocks.

Or i'd hope so, otherwise i'm going to have to kill him and any offspring he has for the good of all mankind (and of course our noble lizard overlords, long may they rule)

Umm, Bob:

It never fails to depress me just how conservative self procalimed radicals can be. 2 areas people expose themselves over and over again is, when they are starting to lose an arguement they come out with crap like.... Hard Evidence please! or Stats to back that up.
Or even worse they post up some "evidence" or "stats" themselves.
[...]
I can only truly give the evidence of my own experiences and those of people i know. But in the end that is the best kind of evidence.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Umm, Bob:

Yeah, i was hoping that tbaldwin was just suffering from a bought of stupidity and so provided him with a way to back down and not look like a total fuckwit by admitting that he over reacted in the opening post.

As to personal experience: An idiot learns from his own mistakes, the clever man learns from everyone's.

 

[sihhi]

And how much do GPs earn, read 2 widely different stats in the last week.....
One said they earn on average £124,000 a year the other said that some GPs can earn up to £120,000 a year
.

This is because some GPs do cover duty work which pays much better.

 

[trashpony]

Or i'd hope so, otherwise i'm going to have to kill him and any offspring he has for the good of all mankind (and of course our noble lizard overlords, long may they rule)

Looks like you haven't got a choice

 

[untethered]

The underlying premise of the OP is that there are no empirical facts or that it is impossible to discern them with sufficient accuracy and reliability. It's just not true, and oddly enough, it's exactly what scientists, social scientists and have been doing reasonably well for years.

We all know that statistics can be wrong in various ways and that some people make entire careers misusing them to their advantage. But smart people are wise to this - they know how to look behind the figures to see whether they're accurate or relevant.

If there's a valid criticism to be made here, it's the practice of repeating statistics out of context from second-hand sources. This is just sheer ignorance. If you do this, you leave yourself open to the possibility that your source is actually wrong or the context of the study isn't valid for your purposes. But if you stick to original sources and cite them, statistics can be a powerful tool for adding genuine weight to an argument that might otherwise just come down to a battle of prejudices.

 

[Streathamite]

Happens all the tome different employment projects all claim the same person as an outcome. Its a joke and ive seen it over and over again..

evidence please. otherwise you might as just be telling us you've seen little green men at the bottom of your garden.

 

[Streathamite]

in fact....tbaldwin, you're a bit squirrels, ain'tcha?
what on EARTH is 'conservative' about preferring a case built on known and analysed facts rather than some anecdote told you by a drunk in a pub?
jeepers.

 

[bluestreak]

i remember reading a pj o'rourke book once, where he talked about how meaningless so many official govt or UN stats were, many of them being impossible to verify, or even count in the first place due to their very nature. but, he said, where they were useful is that they are mostly collected in the same ways, so if nothing else they had both a) approximate value, and b) relative value.

 

[ViolentPanda]

evidence please. otherwise you might as just be telling us you've seen little green men at the bottom of your garden.

He doesn't "do" evidence.

It's always "people want this" or "most people want that", and he always knows what the average person thinks on any subject, but he NEVER produces anything but anecdote to support what he says.

Call him on it and he'll slime you with snidey remarks, but he still won't "do" evidence.

 

[ViolentPanda]

in fact....tbaldwin, you're a bit squirrels, ain'tcha?
what on EARTH is 'conservative' about preferring a case built on known and analysed facts rather than some anecdote told you by a drunk in a pub?
jeepers.

Maybe it's "conservative" measured against his belief that he is "socialist"?