• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Tell me CDC hasn’t gone to the dark side...

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Correction: "Statistically speaking, some statistical analyses will be flawed.

Statistics does not care about your flawed opinion of statistics. Done right, statistics remains sound.

Put another way, if two statisticians come up with different answers, either one, the other, or both of them are doing it wrong.

Put a third way, if you give 30 statisticians a properly formulated and worded problem, you'll receive 25 identical, correct answers and 5 "artistic" but flawed variations.[/QUOTE]


The trouble is a lot of those using statistics have, monetary or political motives/agenda affecting their work.

It is really hard to sort out the liars.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Because studies are good for all sorts of other things...

It's a little (meaning a lot) more complicated than that.

Of course not. Why would any sane, rational adult believe that?

You cannot be serious...

Your post is irrelevant.

You slammed statistics as some sort of voodoo science.

Clearly
, you don't know stats.

I
do.

End
of discussion.

Correction: "Statistically speaking, some statistical analyses will be flawed

Statistics does not care about your flawed opinion of statistics. Done right, ....

Put another way...

Put a third way...

but
flawed.[/QUOTE]


So Since9, as you dance to the voodoo drums for the forum members, are you dancing to the tune of LIES or DANUBE LIES or just the tune of STATISTICS?

Please remember, Since9 quote, Statistics does note care...unquote.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Your defense of statistical analysis is noble...not sure why you take my skepticism of polls and statistical analysis personally.

Not personally. Professionally.


Thank you. I'm well aware of how statistics can be misused.

Having been around for at least 350 years, however, statistics is not a new branch of mathematics. Nor is it a collection of plug and play equations.

Rather, statistics is a rigorous science comprised of time-tested and independently reproducible and verifiable mathematics, rules, and procedures.

The severe disdain with which you treat it, however, gives one the impression you think nothing more of it than a handful of parlor tricks.

If that's what you believe, then again, Sir, I submit you know exceedingly little about science of statistics.

And again, I attest that when one follows the well-established math, rules, and procedures, one arrives at the correct answers, along with the appropriate qualifiers.

I also attest that those who don't believe that's possible have never learned the math, rules, and procedures.

A proper analogy would be the "experts" of the early 1900s who swore on a stack of Bibles that mankind would never be able to invent, much less drive, an automobile that could travel faster than a horse.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Not personally. Professionally.



Thank you. I'm well aware of how statistics can be misused.

Having been around for at least 350 years, however, statistics is not a new branch of mathematics. Nor is it a collection of plug and play equations.

Rather, statistics is a rigorous science comprised of time-tested and reproducible mathematics, rules, and procedures.

The severe disdain with which you treat it, however, gives one the impression you think nothing more of it than a handful of parlor tricks.

If that's what you believe, then again, Sir, I submit you know exceedingly little about science of statistics.
I distinctly recall someone on this post making reference to lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. Statistics have been used to promote lies.
"Oh! What A Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive."
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Not personally. Professionally. ... The severe disdain with which you treat it, however, gives one the impression you think nothing more of it than a handful of parlor tricks.

If that's what you believe, then again, Sir, I submit you know exceedingly little about science of statistics. ...
Certainly does not appear to be professionally.

Statistical analysis is akin to political polls...ya only get out what you wanted to put in...garbage in garbage out... - OC for ME

...not sure why you take my skepticism of polls and statistical analysis personally. - OC for ME
I certainly have not shown disdain. I certainly have illustrated that you only get out of statistical study what you put in to statistical study. You have stated that you are well aware of how statistics can be misused...such as the CDC study.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Certainly does not appear to be professionally.

Like I told the guy who told me I could never have been in the military...

Reality trumps your perception.

I certainly have not shown disdain.

Well, getting back to appearances, that's the way it appeared to me. Thank you for clarifying your position.

I certainly have illustrated that you only get out of statistical study what you put in to statistical study.

This is true. However, there's a point where whatever one is doing with the data ceases being statistics and devolves into ignorantly playing around with the data. At that point, it's no longer statistics, hence my position, "statistics doesn't lie." I find this to be common among newscasters who took a college course in statistics or who fail to present a bona fide report from an objective perspective. People misusing, or rather, not using statistics can tell any story they wish. Just don't call it statistics.

You have stated that you are well aware of how statistics can be misused...such as the CDC study.

Takes me back to the old axiom about telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

1. Telling the truth: Obviously, if you tell something other than the truth, it's a lie. If you omit part of the truth, it's deception i.e. a lie. If a car is red and you say it's blue, well, that's not telling the truth. It's a lie. If a car is two-toned and you know it, but only mention one color, intending to mislead someone, say, investigators, then you're begin deceptive i.e. lying while trying to get away with it.

a. The whole truth: This is the most common form of deception used in the media. They only tell part of the truth. The Gun Violence Archive, quoted in a recent Market Watch article, is a prime example. Both mention some of the atrocities attributable to firearms, but both fail to tell the whole story. They refuse to break out which of those were lawful defenses of life, limb, and property against violent attack. They completely fail to put things in their proper perspective by noting several hundreds of thousands of times firearms have been used to prevent crime altogether.

b. And nothing but the truth: This is when people outright tell a falsehood. The media rarely does this as they'd get their butts handed to them.

As for the CDC study, well, see the links above. If they're only reporting some statistics while failing to disclose others which don't match their narrative, then yes, they're guilty of deception i.e. lying.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
snipppp...


This is true. However, there's a point where whatever one is doing with the data ceases being statistics and devolves into ignorantly playing around with the data. At that point, it's no longer statistics, hence my position, "statistics doesn't lie." I find this to be common among newscasters who took a college course in statistics or who fail to present a bona fide report from an objective perspective. People misusing, or rather, not using statistics can tell any story they wish. Just don't call it statistics.


snipp...


As for the CDC study, well, see the links above. If they're only reporting some statistics while failing to disclose others which don't match their narrative, then yes, they're guilty of deception i.e. lying.


Since9 10.06.18 quote: I very seriously doubt the CDC would fudge the data...


Since9 10.26.18 quote: You slammed statistics as some sort of voodoo science. Clearly, you don't know stats.


Since9 10.28.18 quote: Correction: Statistically speaking, some statistical analyses will be flawed.


Since9 10.29.18 quote: Thank you. I'm well aware of how statistics can be misused.


so Since9, on the 30th of Oct you state the big "IF", yet over the last month you have not proffered any objective evidence refuting the CDC study's usage of an "*" whatsoever regarding their alleged practice of only reporting some statistics while failing to disclose others which don't match their narrative! so then you now believe they are guilty of blatant deception and are lying to the citizens of the world who use their data?


so speaking from your learned, professional statistically observation...Is the CDC's public stats lies?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Disdain has a specific meaning. You stated "The severe disdain with which you treat it..." I stated that, essentially, garbage in is garbage out." This is not disdain, but a fact.
Well, getting back to appearances, that's the way it appeared to me. Thank you for clarifying your position.
You took a personal offense to a fact.
This is true. ...

... As for the CDC study, well, see the links above. If they're only reporting some statistics while failing to disclose others which don't match their narrative, then yes, they're guilty of deception i.e. lying.
Thank you for clarifying your position.

Garbage in is garbage out? Facts are funny things I have been told...err...read.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Disdain has a specific meaning. You stated "The severe disdain with which you treat it..." I stated that, essentially, garbage in is garbage out." This is not disdain, but a fact.You took a personal offense to a fact.

"GIGO" is not any sort of logical defense against others observing you treating an issue with disdain.

Regardless, let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we?
 
Top