Statistics and all that - anajmi vs. Grayson

[Grayson]

Back to statistics are we?

Rather than point out the specific factors in your article (which I will if you insist) and say why none if it still isn't absolute, consider the following:

http://www.psmag.com/health/rerun-thera ... rol-44378/

vs.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/08/17/w ... f-your-tv/ .

Which is true and why? I sure don't know. Not absolutely.

[anajmi]

Your analogy is invalid. It is like comparing Lebron James with Tiger Woods to determine who is better.

[Grayson]

Your analogy is invalid. It is like comparing Lebron James with Tiger Woods to determine who is better.

Precisely what I'm attempting to show. A point (and agenda) that can be extrapolated from each that means nothing absolute from either.
Related studies that actually aren't due to a difference in nuances.

[anajmi]

So your point was in not making any sense while making a point? Brilliant.

In which case, I would say that I made my point.

[Grayson]

So your point was in not making any sense while making a point? Brilliant.

In which case, I would say that I made my point.

My point is in showing 'Home Cooking Increases Longevity' and 'Nutrición hospitalaria' doesn't 'debunk' any tiffin myth.
Please correct where I am wrong (in all honesty, I would like to learn if my argument faltered). I think my logic makes sense/(actually is logic).

[anajmi]

The key is that we do not need statistics to debunk a myth. It is a myth after all!!

We shouldn't be arguing about this idiotic scheme. This scheme was created to make money for kothar. Whether it is good for others is a moot point. There is a famous saying that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. With the dabba taking over the stomach, the woman will be hard pressed searching for others routes.

[Grayson]

The key is that we do not need statistics to debunk a myth. It is a myth after all!!

We shouldn't be arguing about this idiotic scheme. This scheme was created to make money for kothar. Whether it is good for others is a moot point. There is a famous saying that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. With the dabba taking over the stomach, the woman will be hard pressed searching for others routes.

Agreed. I responded to a fellow user this "proves" nothing, and felt the need to back up my claim when asked (and when produced with a subsequent article). I'll stick by that without assuming any other certainties. Or uncertainties.

[anajmi]

Actually, the original post on this thread makes good sense. You posted something that doesn't make sense and then tried to show that since what you posted doesn't make sense the original post doesn't make any sense either. That doesn't make any sense to me.

You need to conduct a study about the dabba scheme to prove your point. By pointing out two contradictory studies on a completely different subject as justification for rejecting this particular study is not too smart.

[Grayson]

As I said above in regards to the original post (Home Cooking Increases Longevity), it doesn't 'prove' anything.

I have no point of my own in regards to dabba being 'good', I merely point out a counter study could theoretically be constructed. Even if it does show evidence in the affirmative, it 'proves' nothing.

My subsequent posts, that are interrelated in topic, but not constant in variables was used to show that using one statistical study to 'prove' a particular point, does not 'support' it per se, as extrapolation (when making a 'point') runs deeper than raw data that seemingly supports it.

I do not 'reject' his particular point, I'm just arguing why it isn't right. More appropriately, why it's not even wrong.

[anajmi]

it doesn't 'prove' anything.

Actually, it does. According to the study people who cook up to five times a week were 47 percent more likely to still be alive after 10 years.

[Grayson]

Sigh; that's not 'proof'. In this particular study in consideration with all affecting conditions? Yes.
As a generalization used to apply to larger factions; it's supportive data at best.

[anajmi]

Do you even know how statistics work? Do you want the statistician to conduct the study in every single household on earth?

[Grayson]

Statistics work in that they don't make sweeping statements to 'prove' points. Generalizations out of sample studies is information to be further looked into, not empirical evidence.

[anajmi]

Which is precisely the reason why you should conduct your own study to "prove" this study wrong. Till then, this study has enough meat to stand on its own feet.

[Grayson]

Lol, this is a good study. The use of it to make whatever point's being tried to make however is not even wrong.
If something's not proven, I'm not looking to counter it. The counter itself doesn't stand as proof. Doesn't mean the original is truth.
Neither's as broad of a sweep you're making it out to be.

[anajmi]

Let me know when you make up your mind one way or the other. I don't like sitting on fences. They hurt my privates.

[Grayson]

It's not about making up ones minds. It's about realizing one thing doesn't apply for all. I rather be in the middle than fall towards a side in which neither offers proper footing.

[anajmi]

Actually, I have chosen a side which has conducted a study amongst a couple of thousand participants over a number of years. Pretty solid footing I would say. Much better than the fence.

[Grayson]

Yes, considering a couple of thousand is a good representation of 6 billion.

[anajmi]

A couple of thousand will provide much better footing than 1 will. Besides, studies conducted amongst a group of a couple of thousands have shown to be pretty accurate for extrapolation to the entire population over the last few decades. Unless you are living in a cave with zero knowledge about statistics.

[Grayson]

A study of one thousand.
Who?
Where?
Financial situation?
Race?
Pre-existing conditions?
Idiosyncratic factors?
I'm sure this is constant throughout 6 billion or thoroughly taken into account among those sampled. If so: ladies and gentleman, we have undeniable proof.

[anajmi]

Yes. Until you conduct your own study to debunk it!!

[Grayson]

Lol. That's cute.
So things supported with a sample study are true for all until proven otherwise. Wish I could see it like that.

[anajmi]

A study with a couple of thousand participants would trump the opinion of 1 any day.

[Grayson]

The opinion of one means nothing; neither does data that's trumpeted to prove a point that can't apply for all.
If that's an opinion, then all studies are pretty much true. Congratulations. We're autistic.

[anajmi]

Congratulations. We're autistic.

Is that a study? or just your opinion? We already know the value of your opinion, right?

[Grayson]

It's an example of how your claim is a little foolish.
Go ahead and find any study you want. I assure you, it's right. (No wait, you assured yourself).
Cause statistics speak for all. Unless proven otherwise. Brilliant, Holmes.

[anajmi]

A study with a couple of thousand participants is much more believable than the opinion of 1. Simple. Now, if you want to say that the study is not valid, you will have to do better than your own opinion. But, you cannot. So, you try to debunk the entire concept of statistical analysis on a smaller sample to deduce the general behavior. Not a good approach. This behavior is similar to that of the kothari goons.

[Grayson]

Actually it's the behavior of academic statistical study. Perhaps you should read up on it.
The only thing I've "debunked" is the "debunking".

[anajmi]

In that case, wouldn't you say that I am debunking your debunking of the debunking?