178
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 654:
Line 654: + +
Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims (view source)
Revision as of 15:59, March 1, 2009
, 15:59, March 1, 2009→Statistical analysis
::::: RobertWDP, I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and stopped there. I'll be honest: I don't have time to explain simple statistics to you. If the expected rate of lung cancer among the general non-smoking public is 1 in 10,000, and you observe a rate of 20% in a sample size of 20 smokers, then that ''is'' statistically significant and should be the cause for great alarm. Deny it, as tobacco companies did for decades, and you can have a good job for a tobacco company but you're not helping any of the potential victims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 28 February 2009 (EST)
::::: RobertWDP, I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and stopped there. I'll be honest: I don't have time to explain simple statistics to you. If the expected rate of lung cancer among the general non-smoking public is 1 in 10,000, and you observe a rate of 20% in a sample size of 20 smokers, then that ''is'' statistically significant and should be the cause for great alarm. Deny it, as tobacco companies did for decades, and you can have a good job for a tobacco company but you're not helping any of the potential victims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Actually, I'm afraid such a rate would not be statistically significant, especially with just the information you've provided in that hypothetical. The fact is that the situation with regards to breast cancer in holyywood may ''appear'' to be like that hypothetical situation you have described, but as I have said repeatedly you have not accurately defined the sample size, and as such you cannot even state what the actual breast cancer rate is within that. Also, if in the smokers case you deliberately chose people who had lung cancer then you would be showing bias in the analysis. That is exactly what has been going on in the main article since people have been selected exclusively because they had cancer at a young age. THere is no mention of any actresses who were diagnosed at a later age, which would affect the average, and this then links back into the point about the undefined actual number of 'hollywood' actresses. I have stated these points before and it is necessary to read the whole of my post to see this. As I have also stated I would rather you didn't make personal attacks against me, I have not done the same, please stick to discussing the actual issues. For one thing this example is not even comparable to the cigarettes causing cancer issue, which of course they most certainly do! No actual biological explanation for the apparent mystery is put forward and so I am not even trying to deny any cause, such as tobacco. Trying to frame my arguments in that light is only going to be counter-productive I fear. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 10:59, 1 March 2009 (EST)