Home
News
Events
Bands
Labels
Venues
Pics
MP3s
Radio Show
Reviews
Releases
Buy$tuff
Forum
Classifieds
News
Localband
Shows
Show Pics
Polls
OT Threads
Other News
Movies
VideoGames
Videos
TV
Sports
Gear
/r/
Food
New Thread
New Poll
Miscellaneous
Links
E-mail
Search
login
New site? Maybe some day.
Username:
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
Select Color
orange
orange-red
crimson
red
firebrick
dark red
green
limegreen
teal
silver
sea-green
deeppink
tomato
coral
purple
indigo
burlywood
sandy brown
sienna
chocolate
FONT
XXSmall
XSmall
Small
Medium
Large
XL
XXL
:DG:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Char
†
‡
‰
♠
♣
♥
♦
‾
←
↑
→
↓
™
–
—
¡
¢
£
¤
¥
¦
§
¨
©
ª
«
¬
®
¯
°
±
²
³
´
µ
¶
·
¸
¹
º
»
¼
½
¾
¿
À
Á
Â
Ã
Ä
Å
Æ
Ç
È
É
Ê
Ë
Ì
Í
Î
Ï
Ð
Ñ
Ò
Ó
Ô
Õ
Ö
×
Ø
Ù
Ú
Û
Ü
Ý
Þ
ß
à
á
â
ã
ä
å
æ
ç
è
é
ê
ë
ì
í
î
ï
ð
ñ
ò
ó
ô
õ
ö
÷
ø
ù
ú
û
ü
ý
þ
ÿ
b
i
u
add:
url
image
video
(
?
)
Message:
you are ab-using [QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:429621"]OK Pat, I just asked a couple statistical questions of my father, who is a mass media communications professor with a Stanford PhD and expertise in statistics, and I can now say for a fact that the article you cited doesn't know what it's talking about, because the methods it criticized are inherent to statistical study: 1. Percentages and raw numbers are two different things. The analogy with Bush getting between 8% and 94% of the vote makes the reader say "well margins of error are only like 4% for most polls, so that means Lancet's study must be garbage!" In fact, the article's reasoning is not only faulty but deceitful in presenting that false analogy. Why? Well, 4% of the number of people who voted in the last election is over 4,000,000 people (which is way higher a raw number than the disparity between the high and low numbers used by Lancet). 2. Your suggestion that Lancet came up with 98,000 [b]after[/b] coming up with 8,000 and 194,000 is WRONG, and CANNOT BE TRUE. In all statistical study, the middle number is determined first, and the low and high numbers come afterwards; in otherwords, the low and high are determined based on the middle number, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. 3. The middle number is ALWAYS the most accurate one. Also, the higher the confidence number, the further the low and high numbers MUST BE from the middle. Those two sentences right there do away with the main arguments criticizing Lancet. 4. I asked if the middle number could be "roughly in the middle" of the high and low (as the article says). ABSOLUTELY NOT. The number has to be EXACTLY in the middle of the high and low, that's how the high and low are determined. Therefore, the article's assertion that 98,000 was the middle, 8,000 was the low, and 194,000 the high GUARANTEES that at least one of the numbers in the article is incorrect. More importantly, all this suggests that the article was purposefully deceitful, trying to discredit the Lancet Study for using standard statistical methods, banking that most readers would be too unfamiliar with those methods to see through their deception. [/QUOTE]
UBB
enabled
. HTML
disabled
Spam Filtering
enabled
Icons: (click image to insert)
Show All
-
pop
[
default homepage
]
[
print
][
11:16:14pm May 01,2024
load time 0.00682 secs/10 queries]
[
search
]
[
refresh page
]