Quote:
Originally posted by CET
Then if you have intention of reading it, and don't care what it says, then stop trying to debunk it without knowing anything about it. Also, since you say you give 2 shits about stats, then stop posting your own stats, even though they don't contradict anything I've already posted.
|
What I was doing was showing how your statistic without more information couldn't be used as an argument, not attacking the actual book. The statistic may be true and useful, or it may be complete crap - we'll never know, because you were too lazy to actually transform it from a random number into a full-fledged argument by providing information on the research method and definitions used.
I'm not saying I don't care about stats, I'm saying I don't care about stats without any further information about "little" things like research method and such.
The stats I posted were meant to give an example of how stats implying the exact opposite can also be found quite easily.
Honestly, I'm shocked I actually had to explain all this.