Comments on: Recognition at last

By: Kirk M

Kirk M — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:28:19 +0000

~~Congradualations~~ ~~congratualtions~~ ~~congrda~~ Good an ya'! Glad you were finally recognize for your tremendous insight, compassion, thought processes, research abilities, consideration of subject matter and all them other complimentary terms and phrases that won't come to my obviously shallow mind that pales in comparison to yours etc, etc, etc. Nothing like an automatic "related blogs" thingy is there? .-= Kirk M´s last brainfart .. Banned by USA Today. Thanks, Sarah. =-.

By: blackwatertown

blackwatertown — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:42:10 +0000

This is proof that you are indeed an expert. The internet says so.

By: Grandad

Grandad — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:33:37 +0000

Mick - Just for you, I did a quick survey of one thousand people. They were asked whether a) they would trust the government, b) have a date with Twink or c) research my arse. I'm sorry to inform you that 98% selected 'c'. The other 2% were declared insane.

Ian - See above for your evidence.

Captain - I read about that survey somewhere. It's like the data that shows the steep rate of decline in heart attacks after the smoking ban, where they neglect to mention that there was a same rate of decline before the ban.

By: Captain Con

Captain Con — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:03:20 +0000

I’d say there is a very good case for surveys below a certain level and then being extrapolated for an entire population being banned as a set of ethical rules for researchers involved in public policy debate.

The most horrific example I ever came across was a survey carried out by a prohibitionist group on what was one of the worst sink estates in Britain- somewhere down near Bristol.

They ‘discovered’ that in many of the houses there were adults who drank to excess- hardly surprising given the conditions and unemployment, drugs etc in that place.

Then they extrapolated their findings as representative f the whole of Britain and released a statement to the usual Nanny papers (Daily Mail, Sun etc) with a headline that read ‘Three in Five British Children Being Brought Up By Alcoholics’.

Cue outrage. As it happened they overegged it and people started demanding their data- when it was revealed what they had done their funding was pulled as the funding authorities realised they were dealing with religious nutters\professional liars.

Surveys are not science. In many cases they aren’t even qualified as research.

By: Ian

Ian — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:43:25 +0000

Hypotheses can only be tested against empirical evidence!

By: mick

mick — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:17:37 +0000

I would hypothesise that researching Grandads arse is indeed an uninviting prospect!

.-= mick´s last brainfart .. The Emigrant Irish – A Vote =-.

By: Grandad

Grandad — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:24:49 +0000

I am aware of that, Ian.

By: Ian

Ian — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:20:51 +0000

I think there is a comma missing after ‘Research’ – instead of being a reflective comment on the findings of a survey, it reads as an uninviting prospect!

By: Grandad

Grandad — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:32:48 +0000

Captain - I could not agree more. Anyone who knows anything about research, blind trials or statistics could drive a fucking navy through holes in most results, yet these results are used daily as a basis for legislation and as an excuse for social engineering.

There was a study that was done recently that found that people who spoke Irish did better in life, earned higher salaries and had higher status. This was on the basis of an analysis of Census data. That was a load of bollox! I could give you any number of reasons why that 'research' is so flawed as to be laughable, but I can guarantee it is being used to press the cause of the Irish language.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you presented me with just about any hypothesis, I could prove it is true/false by the use of 'research' and statistics?

By: Captain Con

Captain Con — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:22:40 +0000

Seriously though Grandad it really is time that scientists and lobbyists using spurious data for social engineering purposes need to be challenged.

We’ve had the IPCC crowd duly skewered because of sloppy research and an arrogant attitude towards serious problems. Enough is enough with these people. I think there is a case for not allowing surveys to be published unless they pass challenging criteria for relevance to an entire population.

Time for a panel through which all such nonsense should be channelled and challenged before publication.