257
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 251:
Line 251: + + + + + +
Talk:Public schools in the United States (view source)
Revision as of 12:36, January 3, 2009
, 12:36, January 3, 2009→Where is your proof?: concession, explanation, elaboration
:: No, Liam, a good place to start is to admit the basic errors in the criticism and take steps to prevent recurrence of more errors like them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:54, 2 January 2009 (EST)
:: No, Liam, a good place to start is to admit the basic errors in the criticism and take steps to prevent recurrence of more errors like them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:54, 2 January 2009 (EST)
:::You already said you didn't read the whole thing. You say the first two are flawed, ok. But you literally can't know if there are errors in the rest. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 22:56, 2 January 2009 (EST)
:::You already said you didn't read the whole thing. You say the first two are flawed, ok. But you literally can't know if there are errors in the rest. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 22:56, 2 January 2009 (EST)
::::I see your point in that my second point was flawed (I can't believe I forgot to take that into account), but that '''still only''' raises the pregnancy rate to 6%. This does not allow us to make the conclusion that there is a 10% pregnancy rate in '''all public schools'''. The statistic specifically applies to the school it was taken from because ''data was only taken from that particular school''.
:::::Let me elaborate. In statistics, there is a rule that before making a statement about a ''population'' (every person the statistic is about) that "the sample must be representative of the population". This means that samples for the statistic have to come from '''many''' locations. If data is ''not'' taken from many locations (that are relevant to the statistic), then the statistics develop '''bias''', or when the result given is not what is true in real life.
::::In context of my point about the 6% pregnancy rate, this means that it is O.K. for the result to be applied to where it came from: the Memphis school. There is no bias ''when taking it in that '''specific''' context''. However, when applying it to ''the entire country'', there is bias. Well, where does it come from? There wasn't bias when applying it to the school, so what is the problem with applying it to the entire country? Let me respond to those questions by giving an example:
::::*"A recent statistic showed that 1900 of 2000 randomly polled people in Washington D.C. are liberal. This means that 95% of ''the entire country'' is liberal."
::::This is obviously '''completely''' incorrect. The only thing that the statisticians can deduce from that is that 95% of people who live ''in Washington D.C.'' are liberals. No information was taken from Texas, Kentucky, New York, Maine, California, Alaska, Florida, Oklahoma, etc.. Data can only be said to represent our country if it is taken from a variety of locations.
::::That is why I have a problem with a variety of the statistics: these were a ''local'' studies rather than ''national'' studies (except for bullying and drugs).::::Thank you for taking the time to read this. <font color="#237923">[[User:WilliamBeason|William Beason]]</font><sup>[[User talk:WilliamBeason|talk]]</sup> 07:36, 3 January 2009 (EST)