Skip to main content

View Diary: A closer look at DGU numbers (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There are oodles of follow-up (0+ / 0-)

    ... and that is not remotely my point.

    The rejoinder that you provide is equally off-point.

    The assertion is that Dr. Wolfgang found Dr. Kleck's methodology perfect and wholeheartedly endorsed his conclusion.  This is what is known as a strawman.

    In response, Dr. Wolfgang suggested that all statistical analysis of large quantities of data have inherent methodological difficulties, specifically including under-sampling, that are simply part and parcel of the "usual criticisms" and this proposition is so self-evident as not worth mentioning.

    Dr. Wolfgang, however, found Dr. Kleck's methodologies to be sound and careful (not perfect), with resulting conclusions that were reasoned and meritious (not absolute and immutable).

    As with Dr. Wolfgang, if you are experienced in science and statistical analysis, why are we having to argue these points.  They should be, as he says, self-evident (at least to those who might be trained, however modestly).

    •  Because apparently (0+ / 0-)

      I need to explain the problem to people like you.

      Small positive sample size + false positive rate + extrapolation to large numbers ==  worthless result

      I'm not sure why you think Wolfgang's comments are the be all and end all, especially since he's not saying what you think he's saying.

      The criticisms by Cook and Hemenway are valid and relevant to this particular statistical issue, and I'm not sure why you think you get to dismiss them just because you have someone else who you think says something differently (even though he actually isn't).

      •  Ok ... you keep (0+ / 0-)

        putting up absurd and wholly unsupported assertions -- Wolfgang's comments are not the be all and end-all.

        But, keep studying the concept of strawman arguments.

        Most peer criticisms of all researchers in the field of statistical analysis have validity -- Dr. Wolfgang's precise point.

        The criticisms of methodology and extrapolation against Cook and Hemenway are equally valid -- unless you wish cherry pick with your academic scruple.

        •  still waiting (0+ / 0-)

          for you to contribute the data.

          If you want to critique the critiques, feel free.

          Find a thread regarding false positives and extrapolation or if you wish, tackle the external validation critique.

          Or, conversely, just repeat yourself over and over. Your choice.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site