You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > statistics, quoting, data and HOL arguments
October 23 2020 5.46am

statistics, quoting, data and HOL arguments

Previous Topic | Next Topic


 

View Forest Hillbilly's Profile Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole 22 Aug 20 3.34pm Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly Add Forest Hillbilly as a friend

So, no one ever won an internet argument. There are no winners, only many losers.
The Sun is no better source of information than The Guardian. People make 5hlt up, whether they are journalists or world leaders.

The use of statistics is mildly amusing to me. It is only relevant if you know where the raw data came from. Was the extraction of data verifiable, and were the data sources representative of the wider population ? Did the data gatherers have an agenda (e.g were they funded by a particular group ?)

Then we get into the processing of data,...statistics. If you want to do this properly, then it's not just about percentages. It's about percentiles of probability (google it). And nothing is fool-proof.

So go ahead and fill your boots.

Quote sources and data as much as you want, but nothing can ever be proven, scientifically. It can only be dis-proven

FACT

 


,.,.,..,

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Tom-the-eagle's Profile Tom-the-eagle Flag Croydon 24 Aug 20 9.02pm Send a Private Message to Tom-the-eagle Add Tom-the-eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

So, no one ever won an internet argument. There are no winners, only many losers.
The Sun is no better source of information than The Guardian. People make 5hlt up, whether they are journalists or world leaders.

The use of statistics is mildly amusing to me. It is only relevant if you know where the raw data came from. Was the extraction of data verifiable, and were the data sources representative of the wider population ? Did the data gatherers have an agenda (e.g were they funded by a particular group ?)

Then we get into the processing of data,...statistics. If you want to do this properly, then it's not just about percentages. It's about percentiles of probability (google it). And nothing is fool-proof.

So go ahead and fill your boots.

Quote sources and data as much as you want, but nothing can ever be proven, scientifically. It can only be dis-proven

FACT


Itís been proved the 38% of all statistics are false

 


"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Online Flag Chatham 24 Aug 20 10.26pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle


Itís been proved the 38% of all statistics are false

Statistically proven obviously.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ex hibitionist's Profile ex hibitionist Flag Hastings 25 Aug 20 1.41am Send a Private Message to ex hibitionist Add ex hibitionist as a friend

so 8 out of 10 owners (who expressed a preference - important caveat) did NOT prefer Whiskas? were all these people liars? oh ye of little faith

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 25 Aug 20 4.06am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

So, no one ever won an internet argument. There are no winners, only many losers.
The Sun is no better source of information than The Guardian. People make 5hlt up, whether they are journalists or world leaders.

The use of statistics is mildly amusing to me. It is only relevant if you know where the raw data came from. Was the extraction of data verifiable, and were the data sources representative of the wider population ? Did the data gatherers have an agenda (e.g were they funded by a particular group ?)

Then we get into the processing of data,...statistics. If you want to do this properly, then it's not just about percentages. It's about percentiles of probability (google it). And nothing is fool-proof.

So go ahead and fill your boots.

Quote sources and data as much as you want, but nothing can ever be proven, scientifically. It can only be dis-proven

FACT

I'd agree with quite a lot there.

If someone is really interested in truth, then they will have no agendas and hold it up as the only virtue.

As Richard P. Feynman said, 'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.'

In reality true objectivity is very difficult as humans view reality through the sensory lens and their experiences often colour how they interpret data and its outcomes.

This is unavoidable.....the progressives like to call that unconscious bias - but I won't portray my views on that.

This means that a correct interpretation of data on any contentious issue will always be subject to bias and subjectivity and hence receive multiple interpretations depending upon worldview.

I'll always respect the individual who is genuinely interested in truth regardless of how society treats it. However it comes at cost....As George Orwell wrote in his classic dystopian novel 1984, 'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'

We are indeed in those times. As those who control the narrative fed to the masses are less interested in the messiness of truth and more interested in the oldest human motive....power.


Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Aug 2020 4.20am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Online Flag Chatham 25 Aug 20 5.26am Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I'd agree with quite a lot there.

If someone is really interested in truth, then they will have no agendas and hold it up as the only virtue.

As Richard P. Feynman said, 'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.'

In reality true objectivity is very difficult as humans view reality through the sensory lens and their experiences often colour how they interpret data and its outcomes.

This is unavoidable.....the progressives like to call that unconscious bias - but I won't portray my views on that.

This means that a correct interpretation of data on any contentious issue will always be subject to bias and subjectivity and hence receive multiple interpretations depending upon worldview.

I'll always respect the individual who is genuinely interested in truth regardless of how society treats it. However it comes at cost....As George Orwell wrote in his classic dystopian novel 1984, 'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'

We are indeed in those times. As those who control the narrative fed to the masses are less interested in the messiness of truth and more interested in the oldest human motive....power.


Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Aug 2020 4.20am)

Amen to that.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View palace_in_frogland's Profile palace_in_frogland Flag In a broken dream 26 Aug 20 12.08pm Send a Private Message to palace_in_frogland Add palace_in_frogland as a friend

Statistics show that there are really only two types of people; those who divide people into two types, and those who donít.

And thatís all you need to know.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Apollofuzz's Profile Apollofuzz Flag Looking into the Future 26 Aug 20 1.20pm Send a Private Message to Apollofuzz Add Apollofuzz as a friend

Yes Prime Minister Opinion polls scene

[Link]

You can prove anything just ask the right questions

 


I ride a GS scooter with my hair cut neat
I wear my war time coat in the wind and sleet.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PalazioVecchio's Profile PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 26 Aug 20 8.38pm Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio Add PalazioVecchio as a friend

Originally posted by palace_in_frogland

Statistics show that there are really only two types of people;


those with guns, and those who dig.

you dig.

 


from the Etihad, Emirates, Molyneux, London Stadium, the Vitality, turf moor & Anfield to Old Trafford.....Raptors on the Road

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 26 Aug 20 8.51pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio


those with guns, and those who dig.

you dig.

TGTBTU

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 


Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > statistics, quoting, data and HOL arguments