This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
So, no one ever won an internet argument. There are no winners, only many losers. 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 disengage, I turn the page. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Tom-the-eagle ![]() |
|
---|---|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
So, no one ever won an internet argument. There are no winners, only many losers. 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
"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle
Statistically proven obviously.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
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
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
So, no one ever won an internet argument. There are no winners, only many losers. 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.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
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.
Amen to that.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Statistics show that there are really only two types of people; those who divide people into two types, and those who don’t. And that’s all you need to know.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Yes Prime Minister Opinion polls scene You can prove anything just ask the right questions
I ride a GS scooter with my hair cut neat |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by palace_in_frogland
Statistics show that there are really only two types of people;
you dig.
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
One more point |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.