Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 652:
Line 652: + +
Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims (view source)
Revision as of 04:32, March 1, 2009
, 04:32, March 1, 2009final reply
:::RobertWDP, you may or may not be aware of Mr Schlafly's considerable experience in the medico-legal world and that he has a commanding grip of statistical analysis displayed on numerous occasions in the pages of this encyclopaedia. It would be sensible, and courteous, to recognise and respect his expertise. [[User:CedP|CedP]] 12:58, 27 February 2009 (EST)
:::RobertWDP, you may or may not be aware of Mr Schlafly's considerable experience in the medico-legal world and that he has a commanding grip of statistical analysis displayed on numerous occasions in the pages of this encyclopaedia. It would be sensible, and courteous, to recognise and respect his expertise. [[User:CedP|CedP]] 12:58, 27 February 2009 (EST)
::::I hope I have been courteous and that I will continue to be. I am willing to recognise the expertise of others if they will do me the same favour. I have studied statistics as a stand-alone subject in considerable depth. I do not think the need for any significant medical knowledge is all that great here, I am willing to accept the statistics provided regarding national rates and the like and medical questions as to what may actually cause the apparent mystery are never really raised to a significant extent and are not the focus of my critique. The specific issues of fundamental statistics I have referred to in both of my previous messages on this subject have yet to be addressed in any response thus far, and I think this might well prove to be a more constructive line of discussion as opposed to speculating about personal issues. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:03, 27 February 2009 (EST)
::::I hope I have been courteous and that I will continue to be. I am willing to recognise the expertise of others if they will do me the same favour. I have studied statistics as a stand-alone subject in considerable depth. I do not think the need for any significant medical knowledge is all that great here, I am willing to accept the statistics provided regarding national rates and the like and medical questions as to what may actually cause the apparent mystery are never really raised to a significant extent and are not the focus of my critique. The specific issues of fundamental statistics I have referred to in both of my previous messages on this subject have yet to be addressed in any response thus far, and I think this might well prove to be a more constructive line of discussion as opposed to speculating about personal issues. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:03, 27 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)