Thrown out of an FBO...

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
If you had ever studied statistics, you would know that is not true. That
is
why sample sizes are less than population sizes, and how confidence levels
are relevant.

I have studied statistics. Statistics are only relevant if you are trying
to make a statement about some proportion of a population.

Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

A blanket
generalization is necessarily about 100% of the population, and the only way
to actually *prove* something about 100% of the population is to survey the
entire population.

Not true. We can prove that a medicine is effective at treating a malady
without testing its effectiveness on 100% of its population. We can prove that
chronic smokers have a higher risk of bladder and lung cancers than their peers
who have never smoked without needing to find the entire populations of smokers
and non smokers.

Statistics has nothing to do with it.

Not true but then again, I don't believe that the original poster said 100%.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

The "facts" that one infers describe a known *portion* of the population.
You cannot prove anything about 100% of a population with statistics. It is
impossible.

Not true. We can prove that a medicine is effective at treating a malady
without testing its effectiveness on 100% of its population.

You cannot use statistics to prove that a medicine will be effective on 100%
of the population.

We can prove that
chronic smokers have a higher risk of bladder and lung cancers than their
peers
who have never smoked without needing to find the entire populations of
smokers
and non smokers.

The very term "risk" precludes an absolute statement about 100% of the
population. That's why statistics can be used to describe risk. You can
use statistics to prove "risk", but you cannot use statistics to prove
actual outcomes. In this example, you cannot use statistics to prove that
100% of chronic smokers WILL have bladder and lung cancers. The best you
can do is prove that it is likely a certain percentage of them will.

Those are two different things. If you fail to comprehend that, you have no
idea what statistics actually is.

Statistics has nothing to do with it.

Not true but then again, I don't believe that the original poster said
100%.

Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire population.
That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.

I'm not surprised you're having trouble understanding this. You're a woman.
Those people are the least mathematically inclined around!

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

The "facts" that one infers describe a known *portion* of the population.
You cannot prove anything about 100% of a population with statistics. It is
impossible.

Again, the only one who is tossing "100%" around is you.



Not true. We can prove that a medicine is effective at treating a malady
without testing its effectiveness on 100% of its population.

You cannot use statistics to prove that a medicine will be effective on 100%
of the population.

So what? That is what confidence intervals are for. But you already knew that,
right?



We can prove that
chronic smokers have a higher risk of bladder and lung cancers than their
peers
who have never smoked without needing to find the entire populations of
smokers
and non smokers.

The very term "risk" precludes an absolute statement about 100% of the
population. That's why statistics can be used to describe risk. You can
use statistics to prove "risk", but you cannot use statistics to prove
actual outcomes. In this example, you cannot use statistics to prove that
100% of chronic smokers WILL have bladder and lung cancers. The best you
can do is prove that it is likely a certain percentage of them will.

Of course you cannot prove something that is not true.



Those are two different things. If you fail to comprehend that, you have no
idea what statistics actually is.

Statistics has nothing to do with it.

Not true but then again, I don't believe that the original poster said
100%.

Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire population.

Maybe.


That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.

Sort of like somebody stating that they know their politics will be different
because they "are from mass [sic]," right?


I'm not surprised you're having trouble understanding this. You're a woman.
Those people are the least mathematically inclined around!

I understand just fine, thank you.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Again, the only one who is tossing "100%" around is you.

You wish that were the case, obviously.

Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire
population.

Maybe.

No maybe about it. By definition.

That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.

Sort of like somebody stating that they know their politics will be
different
because they "are from mass [sic]," right?

Yes, much like that. So?

I understand just fine, thank you.

Clearly, you do not. You're welcome.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Again, the only one who is tossing "100%" around is you.

You wish that were the case, obviously.


I have no need to wish.


Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire
population.

Maybe.

No maybe about it. By definition.

Whose definition?



That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.

Sort of like somebody stating that they know their politics will be
different
because they "are from mass [sic]," right?

Yes, much like that. So?

You stated no quarrel with that generalization in this same thread.

You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How so?



I understand just fine, thank you.

Clearly, you do not. You're welcome.

"Do not...". There is not even any indication of what you think you are
talking about.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
I have no need to wish.

Lack of need is no indication of lack of doing.

No maybe about it. By definition.

Whose definition?

By the definition of the words. "Generalization" has a specific meaning,
that is to generalize, or to infer a general conclusion. The word "blanket"
means to cover completely. *Completely*.

A "blanket generalization" is a generalization that applies the
generalization completely.

You stated no quarrel with that generalization in this same thread.

Well, first of all, I'm under no obligation to respond to everything I
disagree with. Do not infer that I condone everything to which I don't
explicitly disagree.

Secondly, the question at hand is whether Jay should have had any reason to
expect the other person to respond negatively and whether Jay should have
thought twice before stating the generalization in the first place. Unlike
others, I am trying to stay focused on that question. Offensive
generalizations posted by others within this thread have nothing to do with
the actual topic at hand, and I see no reason to waste my time on them.

You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How
so?

I find it amazing that I should have to explain why a blanket generalization
is offensive (and in particular, insulting generalizations...I admit, most
people aren't offended when they are part of a group that someone claims has
some positive characteristic, but that's not what we're talking about here).

This is basic kindergarten stuff, IMHO. Anyone with a proper upbringing
should understand why it's not nice to say mean things about someone, and
especially about a large population generally.

If you can't comprehend this, then I believe it is hopeless to try to
explain the specifics of the situation to you. You don't even understand
the underlying concepts.

I understand just fine, thank you.

Clearly, you do not. You're welcome.

"Do not...". There is not even any indication of what you think you are
talking about.

Of course there is an indication. It's the reason I quoted your text.
Again, I find it amazing this needs to be explained to you, but since your
comprehension level is so low, here it is, spelled out:

"Clearly, you do not UNDERSTAND JUST FINE." (Note words taken directly from
the quoted text to which my text referred).

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
I have no need to wish.

Lack of need is no indication of lack of doing.

Irrelevant.



No maybe about it. By definition.

Whose definition?

By the definition of the words. "Generalization" has a specific meaning,
that is to generalize, or to infer a general conclusion. The word "blanket"
means to cover completely. *Completely*.

A "blanket generalization" is a generalization that applies the
generalization completely.

Yes, blanket, as in "generalizations are so offensive."



You stated no quarrel with that generalization in this same thread.

Well, first of all, I'm under no obligation to respond to everything I
disagree with. Do not infer that I condone everything to which I don't
explicitly disagree.

Secondly, the question at hand is whether Jay should have had any reason to
expect the other person to respond negatively and whether Jay should have
thought twice before stating the generalization in the first place. Unlike
others, I am trying to stay focused on that question. Offensive
generalizations posted by others within this thread have nothing to do with
the actual topic at hand, and I see no reason to waste my time on them.

You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How
so?

I find it amazing that I should have to explain why a blanket generalization
is offensive (and in particular, insulting generalizations...I admit, most
people aren't offended when they are part of a group that someone claims has
some positive characteristic, but that's not what we're talking about here).

Actually, you made a blanket generalization that generalizations are offensive.

This is basic kindergarten stuff, IMHO. Anyone with a proper upbringing
should understand why it's not nice to say mean things about someone, and
especially about a large population generally.

Now you are making another generalization about "anyone with a proper
upbringing."

If you can't comprehend this, then I believe it is hopeless to try to
explain the specifics of the situation to you.

That's not nice, Pete.

You don't even understand
the underlying concepts.

Incorrect.



I understand just fine, thank you.

Clearly, you do not. You're welcome.

"Do not...". There is not even any indication of what you think you are
talking about.

Of course there is an indication. It's the reason I quoted your text.
Again, I find it amazing this needs to be explained to you, but since your
comprehension level is so low, here it is, spelled out:

"Clearly, you do not UNDERSTAND JUST FINE." (Note words taken directly from
the quoted text to which my text referred).

Clearly, I do, and I also note that you continue to make generalizations while
railing about generalizations.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:12:34 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

The "facts" that one infers describe a known *portion* of the population.
You cannot prove anything about 100% of a population with statistics. It is
impossible.

Not true. We can prove that a medicine is effective at treating a malady
without testing its effectiveness on 100% of its population.

Isn't that "We can show within a specific margin of error
(probability) what we can expect from the general population?"


You cannot use statistics to prove that a medicine will be effective on 100%
of the population.

The two of you are using different definitions of proof.
Stastical proof and absolute proof.

When it comes to stastics there are usually exceptions to a proof.
It's sorta like side effects from medication. Even when less than the
placeibo they still have to be listed which generally means those side
effects were probably "all in their head" or elsewhere.



We can prove that
chronic smokers have a higher risk of bladder and lung cancers than their
peers
who have never smoked without needing to find the entire populations of
smokers
and non smokers.

The very term "risk" precludes an absolute statement about 100% of the
population. That's why statistics can be used to describe risk. You can
use statistics to prove "risk", but you cannot use statistics to prove
actual outcomes. In this example, you cannot use statistics to prove that
100% of chronic smokers WILL have bladder and lung cancers. The best you
can do is prove that it is likely a certain percentage of them will.

Those are two different things. If you fail to comprehend that, you have no
idea what statistics actually is.

Statistics has nothing to do with it.

Not true but then again, I don't believe that the original poster said
100%.

Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire population.
That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.

I'm not surprised you're having trouble understanding this. You're a woman.
Those people are the least mathematically inclined around!

Pete

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Wadda maroon...

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

mike regish wrote:

Wadda maroon...

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

??? Can you actually support any of your statements, or you just prefer to
make callow drive-by comments?