The New Religion of Mass Genocide, from 'scientists'

[ebia]

How many people actually understand statistics anyway?

Sadly few, which is why attempts to abuse it must be challenged.

Anyone who claims that people who chose to attend a speech can be considered a random sample of the population either doesn't know what they are talking about, or is guilty of bearing false witness.

 

[Nazaroo]

If you think that the people who choose to attend a person's speach can be considered a random sample then your statistics is in serious trouble.

Perhaps 'random sample' has been used rather loosely here. However, the main point I made was not that it was a particularly great random sample, but rather that it is probably the best one could achieve. It was after all a rather full cross-section of the 'scientific' community at Texas University, which itself would be a good sample of American university crowds, etc.

But why belabour the point? Do you really have the time to set up a double-blind study of my personal grasp of statistical mechanics, or say, modern entropy theory?

What kind of test do you think you could propose that would satisfy your own scientific criterion?

 

[ebia]

Perhaps 'random sample' has been used rather loosely here. However, the main point I made was not that it was a particularly great random sample, but rather that it is probably the best one could achieve. It was after all a rather full cross-section of the 'scientific' community at Texas University, which itself would be a good sample of American university crowds, etc.

But why belabour the point? Do you really have the time to set up a double-blind study of my personal grasp of statistical mechanics, or say, modern entropy theory?

What kind of test do you think you could propose that would satisfy your own scientific criterion?

You're the one making the claim. The fact that you haven't got any good evidence doesn't entitle you to post spurious evidence instead and hope no-one notices.