Timeline for Can we determine the percentage of statistics made up out of thin air?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jul 12, 2014 at 9:50 | history | notice added | Sklivvz | Historical significance | |
| S Jul 12, 2014 at 9:50 | history | locked | Sklivvz | ||
| Jul 12, 2014 at 9:50 | history | edited | Sklivvz |
edited tags
|
|
| S Jan 13, 2014 at 20:29 | history | suggested | RomanSt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
replaced dead link
|
| Jan 13, 2014 at 18:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 13, 2014 at 20:29 | |||||
| Jul 12, 2011 at 0:20 | vote | accept | Monkey Tuesday | ||
| Jul 3, 2011 at 12:28 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSkeptic/status/87497847909523456 | ||
| Jul 3, 2011 at 3:59 | answer | added | Oddthinking♦ | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 14:19 | comment | added | John McNamara | Yes. But it could be a lot of work. First you would have to limit the scope. I presume what's said in pubs or taxi's doesn't interest you (or maybe it does). Once scope is decided use a suitable statistical model and random sampling to determine with 9x% certainty that y% of statistics are made up! Your scope can only contain cases for which you can prove the statistic was made up, or at least have a high probability of certainty. | |
| May 23, 2011 at 20:32 | comment | added | user3063 | I dont know, but to help you out, you certainly have to include politicians in your equation | |
| May 23, 2011 at 13:04 | comment | added | Oliver_C | 12 out of 8 people don't understand statistics ;) | |
| May 23, 2011 at 12:27 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Removed the offensive term. It was completely out of place. Please keep further comments on topic. | |
| May 23, 2011 at 12:26 | history | edited | Sklivvz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| May 23, 2011 at 9:57 | comment | added | Hairy | Please keep ass hat in here, it's adding to my lexicon. | |
| May 23, 2011 at 9:37 | comment | added | Monkey Tuesday | @odd I agree,and that does distress me.I really didn't expect what I figured was kind of a throw-away joke to require this much defense.Still, I feel the term adequately conveys the fool he's known to have made of himself in front of the whole world.Also, the mere mention of his name (and he is the picture-perfect example of fabricated statistical evidence) would probably have caused someone to comment calling him something or other and we'd probably be right here anyway, only in that case it might actually be worse due to his association with the abortion debate. | |
| May 23, 2011 at 9:18 | comment | added | Rusty | @Monkey Kyl has "privilege". He would be required to prove the statement was made with reckless disregard for the truth. That dog won't hunt. Personally I just use profanity so insane that the entire concept of decorum is briefly excluded from the universe. Thanks for your help. | |
| May 23, 2011 at 9:13 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | Through your references, you have now proved he is indeed noted as an asshat. Doesn't change my position. (If you are trying to be Judd Nelson from From The Hip, you have succeeded. We are now more focussed on the word "asshat" than the original question.) | |
| May 23, 2011 at 9:07 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | It isn't that I am offended by the language. Fuck, no. It is that it is that it is mocking behaviour, which we have a low tolerance for on this site. (Go ahead and put it on your blog with my blessing.) The issue with the mocking is that it may scare off the exact audience of people we want to read this stuff - e.g. those who support such politicians, or those who believe it is acceptable behaviour to make up statistics without references. (I got the ninja guard reference, but you didn't use it in the question, and I didn't quite follow what its absence proved.) | |
| May 23, 2011 at 9:06 | comment | added | Monkey Tuesday | @oddthinking I know you were being sarcastic about the references,but.... here's one and another here's one with video | |
| May 23, 2011 at 8:47 | comment | added | Monkey Tuesday | @oddthinking I can understand it's the offensive language that bothers you, as you made no mention of the fact that he is also called one of gaddafi's sexy female ninja guards. However, Jon Kyl is widely known mainly because of the ridicule he's received (deservedly)for this particular incident, and is thus more widely known as an ass-hat than as a United States Senator. I agree the term is offensive, moreso to some than others, but I feel it is indeed an adequate description in this case. | |
| May 23, 2011 at 8:34 | comment | added | Darwy | @Rusty intellectual dishonesty is essentially the advocation of a position known to be false. The other gentleman claimed that use of Plan B causes an abortion. This is false. Plan B is not an abortificant. But because he is Catholic the use of Plan B is, in his opinion, the same as having an abortion. However, the use of the ordinary birth control pill and the mirena iud are only 'problematic' for him, and not considered abortion to him despite the fact it's the same chemical compound. | |
| May 23, 2011 at 8:29 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | @Monkey Tuesday, I accept your characterisation: an unnecessary insult, but not ad hominem. I retract my statement that it was ad hominem, sorry. Now that we've agreed on that, I still think it should be removed! I don't think the fact that it is unactionable makes it appropriate. (I would call for the term to be removed because it hasn't a reference, but I fear you will provide one!) | |
| May 23, 2011 at 8:19 | comment | added | Monkey Tuesday | @Rusty It's possible. It would depend on what was able to be proven regarding his motives for the initial fabrication, but a statement of that sort could also be considered libelous in print, given the legal nature of the term "malice aforethought". Thankfully however, ass-hat is not an actionable term. | |
| May 23, 2011 at 8:03 | comment | added | Rusty | @Monkey How could it not be a factual statement ? | |
| May 23, 2011 at 8:01 | comment | added | Rusty | @Darwy Intellectual dishonesty. Is that the same as lying ? | |
| May 23, 2011 at 8:01 | comment | added | Monkey Tuesday | @Rusty is it intended as a factual statement? | |
| May 23, 2011 at 7:52 | comment | added | Rusty | @Monkey Would... "Senator Kyl's statement was purposeful and done with malice aforethought*." ...be considered an ad hominem attack ? *A general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. | |
| May 23, 2011 at 7:31 | comment | added | Darwy | But in response to your question, many statistics have a verifiable source: the ass of the person that came out with them. | |
| May 23, 2011 at 7:30 | comment | added | Darwy | I had a disagreement with a gentleman in the comments section of my hometown newspaper. He, a staunch Catholic, included emergency contraception pills (Plan B) in his figures for 'abortions performed by PP' - because he considered each instance of their use an abortion. However, he did not include the figures of women who utilize Mirena or the 'regular' pill. I called him out for intellectual dishonesty; because if he was going to include Plan B, he needed to also claim the Mirena IUD and 'pill' performed abortions as well, since they were the same chemical compound for the same purpose. | |
| May 23, 2011 at 4:38 | comment | added | Monkey Tuesday | @oddthinking An ad hominem attack implies that it is either Jon Kyl's claims or credibility in question. I assure you, they are not, he is referenced only because his behavior is a famous and recent example which illustrates the larger question about the prevalency of fabricted statistics. Was it an insulting thing to say? Absolutely. Was it necessary? Probably not. But ad hominem attack? Nope. | |
| May 23, 2011 at 4:16 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | I agree with @Patches. You are adequately discrediting Jon Kyl with a simple reference to his words and behaviour. There's no need to include emotive ad hominem terms on top of that. (This is not a defence of the man; I am not a US voter and have not formed an opinion of him.) | |
| May 23, 2011 at 1:33 | comment | added | Larian LeQuella |
Not intended to be a factual statement is right up there with the Texas Board of Education textbooks! The Chinese, Indians, and every other country in the world must be chortling and just saying, "Excellent!" as they watch the US slide into Idiocracy.
|
|
| May 22, 2011 at 22:31 | comment | added | Monkey Tuesday | Not intended to be a factual statement | |
| May 22, 2011 at 22:26 | comment | added | Patches | While as a resident of Arizona I strongly agree with your characterization of Senator Kyl as an "ass-hat", it's inappropriate to call him out as such on Skeptics. | |
| May 22, 2011 at 22:08 | history | asked | Monkey Tuesday | CC BY-SA 3.0 |