ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
bluestreak said:
Yep, and if you know the specific methodology used to compile the statistics you can, to a degree, offset differences between different statistics and make a limited relative comparison.
Evidence and Statistics!!!!
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
Yep, and if you know the specific methodology used to compile the statistics you can, to a degree, offset differences between different statistics and make a limited relative comparison.
tbaldwin said:
Jaysus wept.
And who is it going to be that shows unequivocally whether this has happened or not?
A bleeding statistician, is who.
1) You are confusing two senses of "statistics": data, the Florence Nightingale sense; and the precise evaluation of the existence or otherwise of patterns in data, the sense for the past 100 years or so.
What a statistician actually does is to analyse the data and say "we can conclude this, but the odds we're wrong are 1 in 100". More honest than this you can not get.
But you don't actually want honesty, do you - you just want people to agree with your rant du jour.
You quote the old chaotic polyabuser Churchill, who'd rather take decisions on the basis of his prejudice, whether it be influenced at the relevant moment by a bottle of brandy, a gram of speed, a handful of downers, endogenous depression or any combination of the above.
2) I deduce that on another thread you've put forward some argument on the basis of prejudice, and been shot down by someone on the basis of data.
If you were honest, you'd provide a link to that thread.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Isambard said:I'm really busy right now.Do I have to read the thread or is it the same shit?
It's the same old shit in a slightly different container.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
He did indeed!laptop said:
That'd be "threads".
I could provide you with links, but I really don't think you deserve to have to read through the whole depressing shitpile on NYE, mate.
If you're really determined though, then there's tbaldwins' "Socialism without the masses" thread on page 3 of this forum which is quite nauseating, as well as treelover's "disability benefits reforms: starting the fightback!" on page 4 which contain the man of the peoples' evidence-untroubled utterances..
Read them at the peril of your blood pressure!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
In Bloom said:Funny that tbaldwin has yet to return to this steaming pile of a thread. Perhaps he regrets it now that he is sober?
I believe he only posts at work, so he's probably going to get "back in the saddle" with a load of sneery invective once he sees how he's been dissected on this thread.
Should be a laugh seeing what kind of insults he can muster.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Nope, he won't be returning, but dont' tell detective boy or i'll be in the shit.ViolentPanda said:I believe he only posts at work, so he's probably going to get "back in the saddle" with a load of sneery invective once he sees how he's been dissected on this thread.
Should be a laugh seeing what kind of insults he can muster.
ViolentPanda said:I believe he only posts at work, so he's probably going to get "back in the saddle" with a load of sneery invective once he sees how he's been dissected on this thread.
Should be a laugh seeing what kind of insults he can muster.
What depresses me is elitists who see themselves as more intelligent and deserving than others. Trust in experts and so called evidence or statistics is very much part of this.
On one hand people on here pretend to be critical about the mainstream media but on the other there is far more respect for their evidence than the views of the bloke down the pub etc or personal experience.
On the IB arguement it was obvious that you had done some research but also obvious that there were a lot of things you had overlooked.
Again and again you dismiss me as ignorant (self proclaimed man of the people etc) You tried to pretend that i saw all IB claimants as scroungers and didntknow what i was talking about. But the fact that as someone with Cancer i had claimed IB and also had oer 10yrs experience in helping people with IB was casually ignored by you.
I would say that you and many others on U75 are LIBERAL SUPREMACISTS.
Some hide it a bit better than you but expose themselves eventually.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Who said anything about trust?tbaldwin said:
If you can understand what the statistics are saying, that is, if you assess the data that the statistics have been drawn from and the way the data has been collated for yourself then trust does't come into it.
If you're stupid enough to blindly trust statistics without scrutinising the dat then you deserve everything you get.
Really? There's me thinking that people on here are on the whole fairly mistrustful of the media, but there you go.
We've been round the houses on this one before.
I've never dismissed you as ignorant, as a twat, but not as ignorant. If you're that thin-skinned that you interpret my thinking you a twat as thinking you ignorant then that's a problem for your low self-esteem, not a problem of mine.
As for the "man of the people" thing, that's ecause you constantly come out with "most people" and "almost everyone" when making points, as if you speak for everyone rather than just yourself. That's the thing about "evidence", it supports what you say so that you can claim to speak for more people than yourself.
Liar.
I said that you said (as you did) on another thread that "loads" of IB claimants were scroungers.
I also (as did tobyjug and treelover, and finally Aylee, who is a lawyer in the field) corrected a statement you'd made about doctors being able to sign anyone off onto IB.
No it wasn't "ignored", stop fantasising and face reality.
What really happened is that you don't like to be contradicted, and resort to insult and the like when people won't back down. Don't try and make out that everyone denigrates you when it's your stock in trade for dealing with anyone who contradicts you, your fucking head should fall off you've got so much brass neck on you!
You can say what you like, mate. That's the beauty of a board like this. You can come out with whatever you like and people will judge you on the merits of your argument, not on how loudly you shout your slogan.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
In Bloom said:
Like hearing the first birds of spring, isn't it?
I notice that old soapy bollocks hasn't addressed any of the substantive criticism made, but instead decided to "get personal".
Why am I not surprised?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
laptop said:Eltisit!
Sowhing off that gou've yot a brian...
At least being called an "Eltisit" (sounds like a chemical toilet) is a bit more entertaining than balders trotting out his hackneyed "LIBERAL SUPREMACIST" (always in caps, mark you!) yet again.
Wonder if he was a teenage Swappie? They never seem to evolve beyond meaningless slogans either?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
In Bloom said:Subtle
Like a breezeblock to the head!
tbaldwin said:
But that is an issue of the fabrication and falsification of statistics. You suggest that a well presented arguement (unlike your own example in the op) should be more convincing than one backed up with evidence. This is crap. What is true though is that any 'factual evidence' given should be subject to scepticism and, if found to be erroneous or misleading or to be a pack of lies, they should be refuted. At least such evidence can be refuted as opposed to a statement unsupported by any evidence.
E.g. Iraqis are thankful that the USA have brought them freedom is a statementy of belief. it can be backed up by various arguments - they must/should be thankful because they have got democracy, can walk the streets safely, are healthier, smile more...but without evidence these positions are worthless tripe. Justifiable to ask what evidence for this?
The evidence suggests otherwise - e.g. opinion polls suggesting a majority of Iraqis oppose the occupation, the fact that more Iraqis are dying violently now than before, that there are still water shortages. All this evidence refutes the above argument. So surely it is justifiable to ask what opinion polls, what stats show that more Iraqis are dying violently, how reliable are those stats, who collected the data, who has interpreted the data....after which a conclusion may be drawn.
The alternative is to accept as a tennet of faith that things are better or worse simply because that fits your preconceived ideas or desires. You won't be convincing many people simply by asserting belief without evidence (unless you are a charismatic priest praying (sic) on the vulnerable).
Single 'n' in 'tenet' mate
Good post though
Good post though
Isambard said:They say "LIBERAL SUPREMACIST ELITIST BOLLOCKS AND DISAGREE WITH THE TAXI DRIVER DOWN THE PUB"
We say: Fightback!
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Wotchoo bumping this for, eh?
Good one William!
I wonder if all the radicals who are so impressed by statistics and evidence could check up how many extra nurses and teachers have been employed since New Labour came to power?
Or how many people were in Left of Labour groups in 1996 compared to 2006?
I wonder if all the radicals who are so impressed by statistics and evidence could check up how many extra nurses and teachers have been employed since New Labour came to power?
Or how many people were in Left of Labour groups in 1996 compared to 2006?
Pigeon said:I heard they were all Zimbabwean, mind.
Can't think where I heard it, but still....
Yes there are loads of Nurses from Zimbabwe which is preety sick...
But instead of poaching Nurses from developing countries we should be training more of our young people to go into nursing and paying them well enough to attract them and keep them...
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
In other words you're a hypocrite, you just won't admit it.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
