It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Are assumed statistics classified as empirical evidence. Can you prove it

page: 1
1
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:07 AM
during a discussion about fossilised eggs and the geological time scale it was suggested that assumed statistics were a valid source of evidence.

Well it wasnt confirmed as more alluded to.

My question is where does the assumed statistic become evidence? 49% to 51%
60% to 40%
70% to 30%
99 to 1% is that the statistical empirical evidence, and if it is why.

Is that even science

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:32 AM
That's what confidence intervals are there for, duh.

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:35 AM
a reply to: borntowatch

Nah not gonna play your game you don't accept any evidence. ..ever.

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:46 AM

originally posted by: borntowatch
during a discussion about fossilised eggs and the geological time scale it was suggested that assumed statistics were a valid source of evidence.

Well it wasnt confirmed as more alluded to.

My question is where does the assumed statistic become evidence? 49% to 51%
60% to 40%
70% to 30%
99 to 1% is that the statistical empirical evidence, and if it is why.

Is that even science

More detail of the argument at hand would help with an answer. We are actually talking statistical inference yes?

If the assumed statistic comes from one study it is not quite evidence and is, as is, assumed - though likely with high confidence (but keep in mind there could have been errors in inputs, data, or methodology). Evidence comes from replication. A study can reveal say a 70% chance, but it remains assumed until it is repeated.

I skimmed through this paper (PDF) and it may contain some information you are looking for.
edit on 4/28/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/28/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:08 AM

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

Nah not gonna play your game you don't accept any evidence. ..ever.

and I need to know you dont want to respond to my question because you think your input is that valued to me?

Why post anything bm, seriously why.

No dont answer, live your word and stay away

I would appreciate that.
I have this question in another thread stillunanswered

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:11 AM
a reply to: borntowatch

You raise a good question .I read climateaudit.org... and they audit scientific papers and have found that some papers should not have passed peer review and been published . In some cases the corrections were made while others were pulled . On a few cases the papers have gone under review but no news on them while the same author's have released papers with similar errors that the journal seems not interested that the papers have these errors.

I guess it's what you can get away with until someone checks the math to make sure it was done properly . Not my vocation but I like reading about the process's .

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:18 AM

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: borntowatch
during a discussion about fossilised eggs and the geological time scale it was suggested that assumed statistics were a valid source of evidence.

Well it wasnt confirmed as more alluded to.

My question is where does the assumed statistic become evidence? 49% to 51%
60% to 40%
70% to 30%
99 to 1% is that the statistical empirical evidence, and if it is why.

Is that even science

More detail of the argument at hand would help with an answer. We are actually talking statistical inference yes?

If the assumed statistic comes from one study it is not quite evidence and is, as is, assumed - though likely with high confidence (but keep in mind there could have been errors in inputs, data, or methodology). Evidence comes from replication. A study can reveal say a 70% chance, but it remains assumed until it is repeated.

I skimmed through this paper (PDF) and it may contain some information you are looking for.

Thanks that was very interesting, its conclusion suggested that assumed statistics for evidence was "risky business" though the issue at hand was based on social issues. That does make it a different beast

Thanks interesting none the less

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:23 AM

originally posted by: JUhrman
That's what confidence intervals are there for, duh.

Duh?
Well thankyou for your link, thanks for all your effort.

from wikipedia
Confidence is generally described as a state of being certain either that a hypothesis or prediction is correct or that a chosen course of action is the best

Sounds like a belief, a faith, religion to me?
edit on b2015Tue, 28 Apr 2015 04:23:13 -050043020152am302015-04-28T04:23:13-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:27 AM
Of course using statistics as evidence is risky.

If I say "my data supports this theory with a 99% confidence level" it's different from "my data supports this theory with a 51% confidence level".

If someone can't understand that difference it means he also can't understand the science behind a theory so anyway you make him believe anything.

The problem isn't with science, the problem is with people who don't understand it.

Statistics can be used for good (checking the efficiency of a molecule) or bad (lobbies manipulating numbers to push for an agenda).

What was your question anyway? Do you really understand what statistics are used for? They are never used as definitive evidence.

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:29 AM

originally posted by: borntowatch
Sounds like a belief, a faith, religion to me?

You are probably trolling but anyway:

It's not an evidence. It's a quantification of certainty. There is no quantification of certainty in faith or religion.

Maybe read more about it instead of trying to be thought provoking but failing badly.

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:30 AM
a reply to: JUhrman

Case in point: my data supports my theory with a 99% confidence level that OP is a troll.

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:38 AM

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: JUhrman

Case in point: my data supports my theory with a 99% confidence level that OP is a troll.

Thats amazing because the evidence in your reply implies you are trolling my thread

Case in point, you offered nothing valid to the thread, no answer and just abused me, sounds like trolling

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:45 AM

originally posted by: JUhrman
Of course using statistics as evidence is risky.

If I say "my data supports this theory with a 99% confidence level" it's different from "my data supports this theory with a 51% confidence level".

If someone can't understand that difference it means he also can't understand the science behind a theory so anyway you make him believe anything.

The problem isn't with science, the problem is with people who don't understand it.

Statistics can be used for good (checking the efficiency of a molecule) or bad (lobbies manipulating numbers to push for an agenda).

What was your question anyway? Do you really understand what statistics are used for? They are never used as definitive evidence.

My question was based on weather statistics could be used to gather a definitive answer.

In another thread about the Geological Time Scale it was seemingly suggested that the statistics justified the GTS
When pushed the answer was not forthcoming so I was intrigued enough to start a thread to see what the consensus was

Now if I did understand what statistics are used for in relation to this issue do you think I would have asked the question.

Statistically I would assume someone who asks a question would be interested in an answer

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 05:01 AM

originally posted by: borntowatch
My question was based on weather statistics could be used to gather a definitive answer.

And can't you just read my responses?

Statistics are not used as definitive answers. That's not what they are used for. They are used to evaluate the plausibility of a model.

Any other questions?

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 05:01 AM

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: JUhrman
Of course using statistics as evidence is risky.

If I say "my data supports this theory with a 99% confidence level" it's different from "my data supports this theory with a 51% confidence level".

If someone can't understand that difference it means he also can't understand the science behind a theory so anyway you make him believe anything.

The problem isn't with science, the problem is with people who don't understand it.

Statistics can be used for good (checking the efficiency of a molecule) or bad (lobbies manipulating numbers to push for an agenda).

What was your question anyway? Do you really understand what statistics are used for? They are never used as definitive evidence.

My question was based on weather statistics could be used to gather a definitive answer.

Nothing in science is ever definitive.
Statistics on their own would not be firm evidence, only firm probability ... other sources of evidence are often combined with statistics, actual observations (chemical analysis, geologic formations, etc) to formulate a more firm conclusion.
edit on 4/28/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 05:24 AM
a reply to: JUhrman

The problem isn't with science, the problem is with people who don't understand it.
Is that not why scientist go and study ? to better understand it ! And because someone can better understand it ,it doesn't mean that they do understand it . Not all scientist are created equal ,and by extension ,some are not very good at all .

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 06:20 AM
a reply to: borntowatch

during a discussion about fossilised eggs and the geological time scale it was suggested that assumed statistics were a valid source of evidence.

Maybe you should define what you mean by "assumed statistics".

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 09:40 AM

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: borntowatch
My question was based on weather statistics could be used to gather a definitive answer.

And can't you just read my responses?

Statistics are not used as definitive answers. That's not what they are used for. They are used to evaluate the plausibility of a model.

Any other questions?

Well if you read my response you would see I had read your response and accepted it, about here JUrhman I wont to put in the exclamation duh to show contempt but I wont

are we happy

and just for the record I asked a question and was not trying to provoke thought.

Thanks for your conclusive reply, it is what I expected, it confirmed my thoughts.
edit on b2015Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:47:32 -050043020152am302015-04-28T09:47:32-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 09:45 AM

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch

during a discussion about fossilised eggs and the geological time scale it was suggested that assumed statistics were a valid source of evidence.

Maybe you should define what you mean by "assumed statistics".

I guess the way I meant it was those who have gathered the statistics assume their science is right.
I am inclined to think the statistics are based on a theory with false evidence.

Please also note this is in the origins and creation forum
edit on b2015Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:10:52 -050043020152am302015-04-28T10:10:52-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 10:16 AM
a reply to: borntowatch
What statistics?

new topics

top topics

1