- #1
Loren Booda
- 3,125
- 4
What do you consider to be the most misleading statistic you have come across or can contrive?
In addition, much so-called "research" in social medicine seems extremely suspect, in that (for example) one may well wonder whether sufficient controls have been developed.Ivan Seeking said:I find many statistics wrt health very misleading. When news reports tell that certain practices increase your chances of so and so by 50%, or even 500%, what is ignored is that this increased risk is often still statistically small, or even insignificant, as compared to other risks that we take every day without giving it a second thought.
No, they're saying within 30 miles is the most likely for an accident.Kenneth Mann said:My old favorite was one that was brought up around holidays. It went like:
"Seventy percent of all auto accidents (don't remember the exact number) occur within thirty miles of home, so be especially careful when - - - - "
This would seem to imply that if we do ninety percent of our driving within that thirty miles, this is the 'safest' place to drive? Is that what the people who made the statement wanted to convey?
KM
Kenneth Mann said:My old favorite was one that was brought up around holidays. It went like:
"Seventy percent of all auto accidents (don't remember the exact number) occur within thirty miles of home, so be especially careful when - - - - "
This would seem to imply that if we do ninety percent of our driving within that thirty miles, this is the 'safest' place to drive? Is that what the people who made the statement wanted to convey?
KM
Nereid said:Reminds me of Lake Wobegone! ". . . that's the news from Lake Wobegone, where all the women are strong, the men are good looking, and all of the children are well above average." I've only had a chance to listen to the show a few times, but this line really cracked me up.
Enlightening. Does the May 03 entry on Sean Carrolls blog remind you of any PF discussions?Nereid said:My own creations - deliberately as absurd as I could make them:
- the GDP of the US and the RA of Pluto are correlated ... r^2 is something like 0.99
- the 'Arpian's' view that a set of 6 (or is it 8?) quasars 'near' (on the sky) an NGC spiral is, in fact, a highly statistically significant demonstration of "pi writ large on the cosmos".
I particularly like the latter - it took me only ~1 hour, yet the numbers were truly astonishing.
(if anyone is really interested, I'll dig up the PF post links)
But only if none of the children were men or womenAlkatran said:This could be a true statement, if all the men were weak, the women were horrible looking, and the children were averaged against the men and women (who are all retarded).
Nereid said:But only if none of the children were men or women
Of course, it is literally true that 'all the children are well above average' if the variable is 'seniority-1'!
Jesus story 'gets it 97% right'
By Barney Zwartz
Religion Editor
July 19, 2005
It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead - based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford professor Richard Swinburne.
"New Testament scholars say the only evidence is witnesses in the four gospels. That's only 5 per cent of the evidence," Professor Swinburne, one of the world's leading philosophers of religion, said last night.
"We can't judge the question of the resurrection unless we ask first whether there's reason to suppose there is a God, second if we have reason to suppose he would become incarnate and third, if he did, whether he would live the sort of life Jesus did."
Professor Swinburne, in Melbourne to give several seminars and a public lecture at the Australian Catholic University last night, said the mathematics showed a probability of 97 per cent.
This conclusion was reached after a complex series of calculations. In simplified terms, it began with a single proposition: the probability was one in two that God exists.
Next, if God exists, the probability was one in two that he became incarnate. Further, there was a one in 10 probability that the gospels would report the life and resurrection of Jesus in the form they do.
Finally, the clincher: the probability that we would have all this evidence if it wasn't true was one in 1000.
He argued that any evidence for the existence of God was an argument for the resurrection, and any evidence against the existence of God was an argument against the resurrection.
"Does he have reason to become incarnate? Yes, to make atonement, identify with our suffering and to teach us things, " Professor Swinburne said.
Even Jesus' life is not enough proof, he said. God's signature was needed, which the resurrection was, showing his approval of Jesus' teaching.
The mathematical equations appear in the professor's book, The Resurrection of God Incarnate (OUP, 2003).
Alkatran said:Have you guys seen those "What's really stupid?" cigarette commercials?
I don't like them. They use faulty statistics. "Well if I stand here in this field with a big metal pole, I won't die because it's statisticly rare for people to die by lightning strike!"
Well DUH! That's because people don't stand in the middle of a field with a big metal pole!
Ivan Seeking said:I just bought my first electric toothbrush. While checking into this I found that one brand is most preferred by dentists, and the other is the most preferred by dental professionals.
Yeah.. That's they're point isn't it? But if they weren't doing that it wouldn't be 'stupid', so they couldn't use the 'you think this is stupid' line.Alkatran said:Have you guys seen those "What's really stupid?" cigarette commercials?
I don't like them. They use faulty statistics. "Well if I stand here in this field with a big metal pole, I won't die because it's statisticly rare for people to die by lightning strike!"
Well DUH! That's because people don't stand in the middle of a field with a big metal pole!