Is there something about statistics that lends itself to this sort of saying, or is it just that people will say anything to support their case, and this includes citing irrelevant or incomplete statistics?
Tell me more
×
Cross Validated is a question and answer site for
statisticians, data analysts, data miners and data visualization experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
|
closed as not constructive by Srikant Vadali, mbq♦, Peter Smit, csgillespie, Rob Hyndman Jul 29 '10 at 23:45
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.
|
Statistics is about inferring something about a population, and that requires some level of interpretation. More intuitively, "is the glass half full or half empty?". They both mean the same thing, but may have a different effect on the person who hears it. So I would say it's the interpretation aspect which is the problem P.S. There's an interesting article on the BBC website which may be worth a read. P.P.S. If you meant this more generally, then there could be a case for saying that the frequentest approach to statistics can give a different result to the Bayesian approach. |
|||
|
