Quote:
Originally posted by punkworld
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.
|
Read the book. It's been years since I read it, so I don't remember that stuff, and even if I did, I'm not going to type pages of that stuff on to a web board. That's a shit load of work for me so that my opponent will likely blow it off, which has happened to me more then once. Go read the book, it goes into agnozing detail on methods and other stats.
__________________
Alt Journals, Blogs for Perverts!
Fitness and nutrition writer, and UNIX/Linux Sys Ad in training
"Just as a man who has fallen into a heap of filth ought to seek the great pond of water covered with lotuses, which is near by: even so seek thou for the great deathless lake of Nirvana to wash off the defilement of wrong. If the lake is not sought, it is not the fault of the lake."