The stark reality

Bartikus wrote:

Is wikipedia a reliable source?

oops.....

precisely, but unless you have some reason for believing that yitwail is a more reliable source, you're welcome to assume wikipedia has at least equal reliability.

0 Replies

According to wikipedia......wikipedia is a reliable source. lol

Imagine that.

0 Replies

Ofcoarse it's reliable; that's the reason I use it often. Wink

0 Replies

I think I've made my point.

You spoke of 'best' data before even knowing what it meant....you assumed.

0 Replies

Bartikus, You talking to me? Wink

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ofcoarse it's reliable; that's the reason I use it often.

actually, wikipedia has a checkered reputation when it comes to reliability, as you & bartikus might well know, mainly because it formerly allowed pretty much unrestricted editing of articles by anyone so inclined. that's no longer the case, but even without deliberate sabotage by third parties, the articles are only as authoritative as the authors of the articles. so, i prefer to use wikipedia to get links to sources cited by wikipedia's article, and use those sources.

back to bartikus' question, in an academic setting, articles that appear in peer-reviewed journals or government publications are the preferred source for secondary evidence, followed by articles in the mainstream press, and online only documents that do not originate in some academic, governmental, or press organization are generally not considered reliable.

0 Replies

Reading until I understand the point of this thread.

0 Replies

Oh no! They have to have points, now? When did this happen?!?

Laughing

0 Replies

Well, snood, when laconic Letty needs some cognitive insight, that's when.<smile> I took statistics in grad school and made an A and understood very little, but I do know that Mr. Turtle has a right to cite, methinks.

0 Replies

Letty, Ofcoarse we prefer credible sources in most things we rely on to provide us with new knowledge or confirmation of what we believe to be true.

There are some information "out there" in webland that may just be generalities to keep it simple without the minute detail of accuracy. If a statement says, "Most Americans live better than 80 percent of all people living today," it can be a truism without being specific on the details. Likewise, there might be more accuracy needed to make comparisons between, say, the standard of living for Americans vs Germans.

There are so many "facts" concerning the details of comparing the two countries, that it may increase confusion more than clarify. When these kinds of questions come up, we can only speak in personal terms; our own experience and observations. That's the only "accuracy" we can rely on.l

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

It is not I to whom it is encumbered to provide said definitions.

It was you who challenged my stats suggesting to use the 'best' data.

...without being able to backup your suggestion.

Ha ha ha
bless your soul.

i missed this post. so i'm responding belatedly. at minimum, a source must be factually accurate to be reliable. i challenged "your" stats on the basis of factual inaccuracy. it claims to report findings by a Phillip M. Harter of Stanford Medical School. i contacted Dr. Harter by email, and he denied authorship. so the piece which cites these supposed findings is demonstrably erroneous in that regard. i also found contrary evidence to several of "your" stats. you attempted to buttress one of them by redefining malnutrition as iron deficicncy. not only did i rebut that claim, the figure of 80% iron deficiency contradicted "your" stat of 50% malnutrition.

i was not challenging the use of data under any and all circumstances, i was specifically challenging their use in your thread, and it was your requirement that i provide a definition of reliability.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Oh no! They have to have points, now? When did this happen?!?

what, you "missed the point?" i've been repeatedly chastised for missing the point, so it behooves you to reread the whole thing until you get it.

0 Replies

Letty wrote:

Well, snood, when laconic Letty needs some cognitive insight, that's when.<smile> I took statistics in grad school and made an A and understood very little, but I do know that Mr. Turtle has a right to cite, methinks.

I'm taking Statistics in grad school right now, Letty! What a co-inky-dink!

Just had my mid term Friday - made a 98%! (Don't ask me what the hell it was about - a whole lot of means, medians, Z-scores and standard deviations that signify not much)

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I'm taking Statistics in grad school right now, Letty! What a co-inky-dink!

Just had my mid term Friday - made a 98%! (Don't ask me what the hell it was about - a whole lot of means, medians, Z-scores and standard deviations that signify not much)

congrats on the score. (are they grading you on a curve? heh heh) are you majoring in the social sciences, perhaps? the impression i have is that the social sciences are stat-heavy.

0 Replies

Well, snood, one must be able to interpolate and extrapolate properly. Razz

Sorry, Bartikus. Didn't mean to highjack your thread., buddy. I just think that our Mr. Turtle has made some valid and reliable points.

0 Replies

thank you, Miss Letty. i try to be valid & reliable, as best i can. Smile

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
It is not I to whom it is encumbered to provide said definitions.

It was you who challenged my stats suggesting to use the 'best' data.

...without being able to backup your suggestion.

Ha ha ha
bless your soul.

i missed this post. so i'm responding belatedly. at minimum, a source must be factually accurate to be reliable. i challenged "your" stats on the basis of factual inaccuracy. it claims to report findings by a Phillip M. Harter of Stanford Medical School. i contacted Dr. Harter by email, and he denied authorship. so the piece which cites these supposed findings is demonstrably erroneous in that regard. i also found contrary evidence to several of "your" stats. you attempted to buttress one of them by redefining malnutrition as iron deficicncy. not only did i rebut that claim, the figure of 80% iron deficiency contradicted "your" stat of 50% malnutrition.

i was not challenging the use of data under any and all circumstances, i was specifically challenging their use in your thread, and it was your requirement that i provide a definition of reliability.

Where did I require you or anyone else to provide a definition for reliability?

0 Replies

Letty wrote:

Well, snood, one must be able to interpolate and extrapolate properly.

Sorry, Bartikus. Didn't mean to highjack your thread., buddy. I just think that our Mr. Turtle has made some valid and reliable points.

He has indeed made some valid and reliable points.

But, that is not all he did IMHO.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Letty, Ofcoarse we prefer credible sources in most things we rely on to provide us with new knowledge or confirmation of what we believe to be true.

There are some information "out there" in webland that may just be generalities to keep it simple without the minute detail of accuracy. If a statement says, "Most Americans live better than 80 percent of all people living today," it can be a truism without being specific on the details. Likewise, there might be more accuracy needed to make comparisons between, say, the standard of living for Americans vs Germans.

There are so many "facts" concerning the details of comparing the two countries, that it may increase confusion more than clarify. When these kinds of questions come up, we can only speak in personal terms; our own experience and observations. That's the only "accuracy" we can rely on.l

Well said!

Also some valid points Cicerone!

At least you get what I'm saying.

Yitwail first said:

"i don't want to evade the question of what makes one source more reliable than another, but i have to give it more thought before i can give an answer that seems adequate to me".

Then said:

"i personally prefer that the compiler of the data makes a conscientious effort to provide reliable statistics."

From where will these reliable 'best' statistics come? Oh......reliable or 'best' sources of course.

Cool.

Can you give me the 'best' statistics from the 'best' and most reliable sources regarding the information contained in my first post?

Then please explain why they are the best and/or most reliable?

Best and most are subjective are they not?

"CI, i don't need statistics to demonstrate that wealth & opportunity aren't distributed equally across the world."

We know you don't need any statistics or anything else for that matter yitwail to inform you of the disparity in the world.

I did not post the information based on what you needed... so it's cool then.

Maybe someone else will find some value in what I posted even if it does'nt measure up to your standards of 'best' and 'most' accurate ....yitwail.

0 Replies

Since I didn't respond to yitwails:
"CI, i don't need statistics to demonstrate that wealth & opportunity aren't distributed equally across the world."

Do you really think most of us do?

0 Replies

The stark reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know