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

a reply to: borntowatch

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.
I am inclined to think that you have it precisely backwards. Observations, which we use statistics to try and identify patterns or trends or correlations in, are made and then a theory is constructed to try and explain those observations. The observations (and therefore the statistics) drive the theory, not the other way around.

Please also note this is in the origins and creation forum

I'm well aware of what part of ATS this is taking place in. What does that have to do with your OP?

Can you provide an example of "assumed statistics" being used as empirical evidence?

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: borntowatch
What statistics?

It doesnt matter what statistics.
It was more about how much evidence can be derived from any statistics.

originally posted by: iterationzero
]
I'm well aware of what part of ATS this is taking place in. What does that have to do with your OP?

Can you provide an example of "assumed statistics" being used as empirical evidence?

Well as a matter of fact I cant, as I have stated clearly in the OP, the suggestion alluded to the statistics were valid evidence, hence my question

Here is a quote from my OP
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.


Now the statistics were not statistics that could be seen or repeated so they are assumed.

Truly I dont know why that is difficult to understand, I guess that means you are fishing for a flaw in my question.

Please just take a second or two more to think about what is being asked.

a reply to: borntowatch

87.334% of statistics are made up on the spot.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: borntowatch
What statistics?

It doesnt matter what statistics.
It was more about how much evidence can be derived from any statistics.

It actually matters a lot. If you have noticed, everyone has been telling you that statistics themselves are derived from real data, the more parameters and inputs that are known, the better the statistics would be. There are studies that could be only statistical and studies that could have other evidence alongside statistical data that would make any claim more firm.

You can find all kinds of statistical data used as empirical evidence (political science would be a good source to look at taking things such as voter turnout real numbers into statistical models), but that empirical evidence, as noted, is only as good as the methodology, input,data, etc obtained and used. No study should ever be taken at face value, even if having passed peer review, any study is only as strong as its weakest point.

No on can give you clear answer, as to the question at hand, without more knowledge of your argument, because the answer largely depends on how the statistics were used in whatever study you are talking about.

More then once on this topic you were given an answer. Also, when asked for examples, you were not able to provide them, in short, there is no evidence that assumed statistics are classified as empirical evidence.

All that aside, and fact that this has been posted in this sub-forum, if you really like to learn about statistics and see science behind it, here are 2 link. First one my kids use for their Math study, well known Khan Academy, while second one is online university level class, that is free, so no reason not to broaden your knowledge and learn something, for a change...

www.khanacademy.org...

www.udacity.com...

If you need any help with either one, let us know, but would suggest to use proper forum and once mastered, I am sure this topic would not be even needed...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
More then once on this topic you were given an answer. Also, when asked for examples, you were not able to provide them, in short, there is no evidence that assumed statistics are classified as empirical evidence.

All that aside, and fact that this has been posted in this sub-forum, if you really like to learn about statistics and see science behind it, here are 2 link. First one my kids use for their Math study, well known Khan Academy, while second one is online university level class, that is free, so no reason not to broaden your knowledge and learn something, for a change...

www.khanacademy.org...

www.udacity.com...

If you need any help with either one, let us know, but would suggest to use proper forum and once mastered, I am sure this topic would not be even needed...

I appreciate the information and suggested learning options
unfortunately I am not really that interested in learning about stats

More than once in this thread I was given an answer that was sufficient to satisfy my curiosity, I cant even imagine why you should think otherwise or suggest otherwise.

I cant even imagine why you are continuing to post, if you recapped this thread I think you may discover that I agreed earlier on the answers were sufficient

I appreciate your suggestion but I think my query was satisfied comprehensively

Cheers

If this is the best the creationist faction can manage thesed days, we might as well close this forum.