Election meddling is an attack worth starting a war

[Ktoyou]

:noid:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

:sozo2:

 

[Stripe]

People who actually put hard statistical studies together would probably have caught it.

Or people who paid even a modicum of attention in first-year stats.

The point was, you were waffling on like your take on statistics — in the weirdest context — was worth paying attention to, but you don't know one of the top distributions.

And it was a couple of lines worth of story that nobody can remember thanks to your insane, repetitive ranting.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Or people who paid even a modicum of attention in first-year stats.

Said the guy who tried to pass an anecdote off as a "data point"? The guy who when confronted with the failure of that nonsense illustrated his chops with:

And yet, the thing really happened. You can reduce things to numbers all you like. This really happened. Nope. I can assert anything I like with no evidence.

Because that's even funnier than the last one. Points. :thumb:

The point was, you were waffling on like your take on statistics

The lack of quoting me actually doing that is just like icing on an imaginary cake. :chew:

And it was a couple of lines worth of story that nobody can remember thanks to your insane, repetitive ranting.

That's his way of complaining that I keep pointing out, as he shifts from the empty "data point" to "It's a story" and "I can assert anything I want without evidence" that he's not really doing anything substantive.


Here's the post he thinks you forgot, the one that he started talking to me with after quoting a part of my post to CS:

That's anecdotal thinking, something a good education would have warned you off of accepting. We use the anecdote to illustrate the rule, but never to fashion it.

When I started university, one of the first lectures I sat down in featured a professor who declared that the Earth is 4 billion years old and there is no debate over the issue.

So much for a good education.

The rest is history...by which I mean this thing has drawn on long enough to feel like it started in a museum.

Else, and for anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position.

 

[Stripe]

Said the guy who tried to pass an anecdote off as a "data point"?

:rotfl:

It is a data point. That's not a radical thing, you know? Anything could be, if you're counting them.

Let's see, arrogant twits who defend universities. Two points.

For anyone coming in late, that's Town and my Environment lecturer.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Let's look at the dangers of trying to use stats without knowing what you're doing:

From my experience and from the anecdotes I've read, it seems to me college purposefully trains Young folks to avoid critical thinking at all costs.

Climate says he's seen stuff and formed an opinion, but TH thinks that is not proper:

That's anecdotal thinking, something a good education would have warned you off of accepting. We use the anecdote to illustrate the rule, but never to fashion it.

However, it is perfectly rational, acceptable, justifiable and pretty much necessary to see stuff and develop opinions about it.

Climate used a perfectly weighted description of the outcome: "It seems to me."

TH jumped on the use of the word "anecdote" and pretended a nationwide poll had been conducted.

This is why statistics should be regulated. One day that thing will go off.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your response to it didn't really give any indication that you did. It wasn't bizarre, it was my using a thing to make a point in a way I believe you attempted to but failed, as per my explanation.


No. You set out an anecdote and drew a public conclusion that you tacked onto a quote of mine about the misuse of anecdote as if you'd said something that addressed it.

When I noted the problem you called the anecdote a data point. When I pointed out its lack of value as a data point you went back to the "It's just a story."

That's all I ever thought it was and why it failed as an answer to my note to CS.


The hissing? That was a one off at the extra "s" you put in "poisoning. It wasn't serious, which is why I set it apart and added the beside it.


No idea why you find that responsive.


This is what Stripe does. Declare and dismiss. What he rarely does consistently and substantively is argue a point. That's why I mostly don't bother, but when he addressed me directly with a goofy bit that failed as the rebuttal offered to a point I made to another poster, I gave it another shot.

That's life for you. Filled with disappointments.

For anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position. And I believe that's before his "It's a story/it's a data point" waffling attempt to make something serious out of nothing much to take seriously for the reasons given.

There's a french guy named Poisson. You might want to look him up to get what Stripe was referring to...

Or just keep calling it hissing. Don't matter to me.

 

[Town Heretic]

Let's look at the dangers of trying to use stats without knowing what you're doin

As I noted prior, Stripe hasn't found one fault with anything I said on the point. Literally not one.

Now he's trying to shift the whole thing again with:

Climate says he's seen stuff and formed an opinion, but TH thinks that is not proper:

No. I said it was anecdotal thinking and I pointed out the problem with forming conclusions from anecdotes, which is what CS did and Stripe managed with his entry into the conversation with me.

However, it is perfectly rational, acceptable, justifiable and pretty much necessary to see stuff and develop opinions about it.

And when you advance those opinions, sum them in a conclusion that is mistaken it's perfectly fine for someone to tell you why that's a horrible idea, that while you can use an anecdote to illustrate a rule you can't use it to establish one.

:rotfl:It is a data point.

Well, data should be more than one, but the real problem was your use. And when I demonstrated that you changed tactics, went immediately to the "don't need evidence/can post anything I want" routine.

Let's see, arrogant twits who defend universities.

Continuing to lean on the name calling nonsense isn't helping you with the advance of conclusions by faulty process.

Else, and for anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position. It's worth a look, because he's going to do his best to find any way to bury and avoid it.

 

[Stripe]

It's a simple enough mistake to make. You hear that anecdotal evidence is not reliable, then you think every time you hear a story, it should be ignored — even mocked.

However, when your mistake is pointed out and you dig your heels in, that's when you make things difficult for yourself.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

There's a french guy named Poisson. You might want to look him up to get what Stripe was referring to.

To be fair, I was just fishing. Ha ha ha ha ha ahem. :crackup:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

It's a simple enough mistake to make. You hear that anecdotal evidence is not reliable, then you think every time you hear a story, it should be ignored — even mocked.

Thanks for illustrating your central problem: presenting "facts" not in evidence, unsupported by reason.

Rather, I simply noted the problem with confusing anecdote with evidence and the mistaken conclusions that flow from that sort of thing.

However, when your mistake is pointed out and you dig your heels in, that's when you make things difficult for yourself.

I didn't make a mistake on the point, which is why you declare it, again, but fail to illustrate it. But that's part of the whole lazy thinking I've noted about your efforts.

Else, and for anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position. It's worth a look, because he's going to do his best to find any way to bury and avoid it.

 

[Stripe]

Anecdote isn't evidence.

Of course it can be.

That would be N=1, statistically meaningless. You need a great deal of data to objectively establish or even suggest a point.

See?

We have a data point. With more, we could do some regression analysis.

There ought to be a law against practicing stats without a license.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Thanks for illustrating your central problem: presenting "facts" not in evidence, unsupported by reason.

It was a silly little story. Get over it.

Rather, I simply noted the problem with confusing anecdote with evidence and the mistaken conclusions that flow from that sort of thing.

Which you've been told numerous times never happened. Is it a piece of 4x2 you have between your ears?

I held the belief without the story. Climate used perfectly reasonable language: "It seems to me."

Looks like you're just out of practice letting go when you're determined to show someone up.

I didn't make a mistake on the point.

Sure, you did. You slipped and darn near impaled yourself.

This is why statisticians should be licenced.

You declare it, again, but fail to illustrate it.

Numerous times, in fact. Perhaps you don't read short, precise statements. Maybe they escape your gaze. Maybe a novel has to be written before you will pay attention.

You're out of your depth, Sunshine.

But that's part of the whole lazy thinking I've noted about your efforts.

For anyone coming in late, Town is an arrogant twit.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Of course it can be.

Not without a large enough sampling and the appropriate methodology for collection, control, etc., as I noted prior.

See? We have a data point.

Meaningless without the more I noted, which you're about to repeat in part.

With more, we could do some regression analysis.

Without more you have an anecdote, an N = 1, again, which is as meaningless as you saying that once you had a professor who declared argument on a point out of bounds and, "So much for a good education" as though it was established even on the point and indicative of more that you hadn't established.

There ought to be a law against practicing stats without a license.

That's Stripe trying to shift the argument and make a case unpresented. You don't actually have to be a statistician to understand what he did and what CS did wasn't sound, methodologically speaking, which I pointed out and he has yet to rebutt.

Statisticians, a term that doesn't describe either of us, know all sorts of things that Stripe can find with enough time and a Google search. But you don't have to be a statistician to see the problem he had in his attempt. You could have simply been exposed to logical fallacy in philosophy classes, the problem of statistical usage in marketing courses, the importance of analysis of data in educational courses, and taken statistics as part of your undergraduate concentration, in my case decades ago, then kept an understanding of the principles fundamental to the effort.

Because he failed those.

Stripe wants to distract because he can't argue the point, which he still really hasn't. And he really doesn't want you to follow the link I'm going to continue to put at the end of my responses. If you go and look you'll see why that is.

Else, and for anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position. It's worth a look, because he's going to do his best to find any way to bury and avoid it.

 

[Stripe]

Remember, the only one who has advanced a logical fallacy is Town, who compared the presentation of a simple story to flat-Earth and UFO theorists.

A classic example of poisoning the well.

Also a good chance to expose that the dimwit doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when it comes to statistics. :chuckle:

Wait. I'm sure I've got a link to a post somewhere here...

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not without a large enough sampling and the appropriate methodology for collection, control, etc., as I noted prior.



Meaningless without the more I noted, which you're about to repeat in part.


Without more you have an anecdote, an N = 1, again, which is as meaningless as you saying that once you had a professor who declared argument on a point out of bounds and, "So much for a good education" as though it was established even on the point and indicative of more that you hadn't established.


That's Stripe trying to shift the argument and make a case unpresented. You don't actually have to be a statistician to understand what he did and what CS did wasn't sound, methodologically speaking, which I pointed out and he has yet to rebutt.

Statisticians, a term that doesn't describe either of us, know all sorts of things that Stripe can find with enough time and a Google search. But you don't have to be a statistician to see the problem he had in his attempt. You could have simply been exposed to logical fallacy in philosophy classes, the problem of statistical usage in marketing courses, the importance of analysis of data in educational courses, and taken statistics as part of your undergraduate concentration, in my case decades ago, then kept an understanding of the principles fundamental to the effort.

Because he failed those.

Stripe wants to distract because he can't argue the point, which he still really hasn't. And he really doesn't want you to follow the link I'm going to continue to put at the end of my responses. If you go and look you'll see why that is.

Else, and for anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position. It's worth a look, because he's going to do his best to find any way to bury and avoid it.

There was a study done about 2000 years ago on how many people would turn to God when confronted with death.

50% turned to God, 50% rejected Him.

 

[Stripe]

Not without...

Then stop saying it isn't. :up:

Meaningless without the more.

Without more you have an anecdote, an N = 1, again, which is as meaningless as you saying that once you had a professor who declared argument on a point out of bounds and, "So much for a good education" as though it was established even on the point and indicative of more that you hadn't established.

It was just a silly story. Get over it. :up:

That's Stripe trying to shift the argument and make a case unpresented. You don't actually have to be a statistician to understand what he did and what CS did wasn't sound, methodologically speaking, which I pointed out and he has yet to rebutt.

Telling a story.

We have gone out of our way to say that our stories don't establish our beliefs.

You're like a dog with a bone, huh?

Fishbone?

:chuckle:

Statisticians, a term that doesn't describe either of us.

:rotfl:

I studied it at university. I've developed stats programs. I've analysed earthquake data.

How about you just admit that you're in over your head while it's still shallow.

There's only sardines at this depth. :chuckle:

A Google search.

Like the one you did to find that "distribution" was a word you could pretend you had connected to Poisson?

But you don't have to be a statistician to see the problem he had in his attempt. You could have simply been exposed to logical fallacy in philosophy classes, the problem of statistical usage in marketing courses, the importance of analysis of data in educational courses, and taken statistics as part of your undergraduate concentration, in my case decades ago, then kept an understanding of the principles fundamental to the effort.

Someone call the authorities!

Town wants to distract because he can't let go. He can't accept that someone told a story.

Else, and for anyone: Town is a pillock.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

There was a study done about 2000 years ago on how many people would turn to God when confronted with death.

50% turned to God, 50% rejected Him.

Yeah, watch out: He'll tell you to drive a tent peg through someone.

Bizzare guy.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

For anyone just tuning in, I told a story and Town's in a tizzy.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Remember, the only one who has advanced a logical fallacy is Town, who compared the presentation of a simple story to flat-Earth and UFO theorists.

That's not really true either. I presented his variation of the post hoc ergo propter hoc a while back. One of many things he didn't address in route to making declarations he couldn't support, which is why he rarely quotes me when he tries this sort of thing.

Here's where the flat earth bit came in:

I'll be the judge of my experiences, thank you.

That's what UFO abductees say. And who can blame any one of you for going with that, given.

Also a good chance to expose that the dimwit doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when it comes to statistics. :chuckle:

This is Stripe continuing to attempt to reframe the thing while not addressing the actual problem. As I said in my last, neither of us is a statistician. I know I'm not, though I'm familiar with the foundational elements of good analysis and collection as part of my educational background, some relatively recent (in collecting an Ed. Masters) and some more distant, in a number of courses from much earlier. I know he isn't because of the way he tried to use data point.


Else, and for anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position. It's worth a look, because he's going to do his best to find any way to bury and avoid it.

 

[Stripe]

Neither of us is a statistician.

Another example of Town ignoring what he's been clearly told.

Else, and more: Town's frazzled.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk