I recommend you read this article
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-is-allergic-to-math/

The Supreme Court Is Allergic To Math

The Supreme Court does not compute. Or at least some of its members would rather not. The justices, the most powerful jurists in the land, seem to have a reluctance — even an allergy — to taking math and statistics seriously.

dv said:

I recommend you read this article
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-is-allergic-to-math/

The Supreme Court Is Allergic To Math

The Supreme Court does not compute. Or at least some of its members would rather not. The justices, the most powerful jurists in the land, seem to have a reluctance — even an allergy — to taking math and statistics seriously.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. They may be smarter than you think.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I recommend you read this article
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-is-allergic-to-math/

The Supreme Court Is Allergic To Math

The Supreme Court does not compute. Or at least some of its members would rather not. The justices, the most powerful jurists in the land, seem to have a reluctance — even an allergy — to taking math and statistics seriously.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. They may be smarter than you think.

I agree.

The failure to recognise the limitations of a statistical analysis based on simplified models is one of the greatest problems we have today, in very many fields.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I agree.

The failure to recognise the limitations of a statistical analysis based on simplified models is one of the greatest problems we have today, in very many fields.

Please read the article.

The problem is not that the Court fails or does not fail to recognise the limitation of statistical analysis based on simplified models.

The problem is that the Court tends to dismiss statistical evidence out of hand, in a world where almost all important evidence is statistical in nature.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I agree.

The failure to recognise the limitations of a statistical analysis based on simplified models is one of the greatest problems we have today, in very many fields.

Please read the article.

The problem is not that the Court fails or does not fail to recognise the limitation of statistical analysis based on simplified models.

The problem is that the Court tends to dismiss statistical evidence out of hand, in a world where almost all important evidence is statistical in nature.

It was more of a general comment, rather than related to this specific case.

This is the US. Is it similar in Australia?

Michael V said:

This is the US. Is it similar in Australia?

idk

dv said: “The problem is that the Court tends to dismiss statistical evidence out of hand, in a world where almost all important evidence is statistical in nature.”

Statistics are totally reliant upon the information that statistician wish to consider and can easily ignore other contributing information, plus there is the slant of the statistician of what they wish to highlight, which in the overall truth of the matter can be very misleading. It is not that the information being portrayed is wrong, but does it reveal all the facts, or just a selected few.

PermeateFree said:

dv said: “The problem is that the Court tends to dismiss statistical evidence out of hand, in a world where almost all important evidence is statistical in nature.”

Statistics are totally reliant upon the information that statistician wish to consider and can easily ignore other contributing information, plus there is the slant of the statistician of what they wish to highlight, which in the overall truth of the matter can be very misleading. It is not that the information being portrayed is wrong, but does it reveal all the facts, or just a selected few.

That’s why it is good to be sufficiently intelligent that you can ask pertinent questions, or even call independent experts. Pretty much everything we’ve learned in the last three hundred years has relied on statistics.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said: “The problem is that the Court tends to dismiss statistical evidence out of hand, in a world where almost all important evidence is statistical in nature.”

Statistics are totally reliant upon the information that statistician wish to consider and can easily ignore other contributing information, plus there is the slant of the statistician of what they wish to highlight, which in the overall truth of the matter can be very misleading. It is not that the information being portrayed is wrong, but does it reveal all the facts, or just a selected few.

That’s why it is good to be sufficiently intelligent that you can ask pertinent questions, or even call independent experts. Pretty much everything we’ve learned in the last three hundred years has relied on statistics.

When your life or entire future might be determined on what is presented, it should not rely upon a statisticians idea of the truth, or what emphasise opposing legal people may place upon it.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said: “The problem is that the Court tends to dismiss statistical evidence out of hand, in a world where almost all important evidence is statistical in nature.”

Statistics are totally reliant upon the information that statistician wish to consider and can easily ignore other contributing information, plus there is the slant of the statistician of what they wish to highlight, which in the overall truth of the matter can be very misleading. It is not that the information being portrayed is wrong, but does it reveal all the facts, or just a selected few.

That’s why it is good to be sufficiently intelligent that you can ask pertinent questions, or even call independent experts. Pretty much everything we’ve learned in the last three hundred years has relied on statistics.

When your life or entire future might be determined on what is presented, it should not rely upon a statisticians idea of the truth, or what emphasise opposing legal people may place upon it.

It’s better to have your future determined by people who understand, rather than dismiss, stats.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

That’s why it is good to be sufficiently intelligent that you can ask pertinent questions, or even call independent experts. Pretty much everything we’ve learned in the last three hundred years has relied on statistics.

When your life or entire future might be determined on what is presented, it should not rely upon a statisticians idea of the truth, or what emphasise opposing legal people may place upon it.

It’s better to have your future determined by people who understand, rather than dismiss, stats.

Anyone can make up statistics and use whatever information they wish. Statistics can be used to prove whatever you wish them to prove. They do not necessarily represent the truth.

PermeateFree said:

Anyone can make up statistics and use whatever information they wish.

And any intelligent person can investigate the statistics to determine whether or not they are meaningful and accurate.

Statistics can be used to prove whatever you wish them to prove. They do not necessarily represent the truth.

You cannot prove anything that is not true.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

When your life or entire future might be determined on what is presented, it should not rely upon a statisticians idea of the truth, or what emphasise opposing legal people may place upon it.

And where or what do we do to determine this truth?
It’s better to have your future determined by people who understand, rather than dismiss, stats.

Anyone can make up statistics and use whatever information they wish. Statistics can be used to prove whatever you wish them to prove. They do not necessarily represent the truth.

Apparently Ronald Regan was horrified to be told that 50% of American school kids were below average intelligence and ordered a review of the education system.
( The yanks vote people like this into power and now they have Donald))

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Anyone can make up statistics and use whatever information they wish.

And any intelligent person can investigate the statistics to determine whether or not they are meaningful and accurate.

Statistics can be used to prove whatever you wish them to prove. They do not necessarily represent the truth.

You cannot prove anything that is not true.

It is only true relating to the information selected and used. The information might be true, but collectively and the way presented does not necessarily represent the truth. So in a court of law, besides deciding the truth of the defendant, they must also decide the intent and truthfulness of the statistician.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Anyone can make up statistics and use whatever information they wish.

And any intelligent person can investigate the statistics to determine whether or not they are meaningful and accurate.

Statistics can be used to prove whatever you wish them to prove. They do not necessarily represent the truth.

You cannot prove anything that is not true.

It is only true relating to the information selected and used. The information might be true, but collectively and the way presented does not necessarily represent the truth. So in a court of law, besides deciding the truth of the defendant, they must also decide the intent and truthfulness of the statistician.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I agree.

The failure to recognise the limitations of a statistical analysis based on simplified models is one of the greatest problems we have today, in very many fields.

Please read the article.

The problem is not that the Court fails or does not fail to recognise the limitation of statistical analysis based on simplified models.

The problem is that the Court tends to dismiss statistical evidence out of hand, in a world where almost all important evidence is statistical in nature.

I agree with dv.

I happened to be reading the book “straight and crooked thinking recently” The book doesn’t deal with statistics directly, but does highlight the need to be aware of it.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

A>>nyone can make up statistics and use whatever information they wish.<<

And any intelligent person can investigate the statistics to determine whether or not they are meaningful and accurate.

>>Statistics can be used to prove whatever you wish them to prove. They do not necessarily represent the truth.<<

You cannot prove anything that is not true.

It is only true relating to the information selected and used. The information might be true, but collectively and the way presented does not necessarily represent the truth. So in a court of law, besides deciding the truth of the defendant, they must also decide the intent and truthfulness of the statistician.

That is how it should read, but dv had used a format that distorted the presentation, which in turn distorted the information presented. Ironic I know, but true.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

A>>nyone can make up statistics and use whatever information they wish.<<

And any intelligent person can investigate the statistics to determine whether or not they are meaningful and accurate.

>>Statistics can be used to prove whatever you wish them to prove. They do not necessarily represent the truth.<<

You cannot prove anything that is not true.

It is only true relating to the information selected and used. The information might be true, but collectively and the way presented does not necessarily represent the truth. So in a court of law, besides deciding the truth of the defendant, they must also decide the intent and truthfulness of the statistician.

That is how it should read, but dv had used a format that distorted the presentation, which in turn distorted the information presented. Ironic I know, but true.

No, think dv has stuffed it.

witty stuffed it. load the thread. DV posted correctly.

ChrispenEvan said:

witty stuffed it. load the thread. DV posted correctly.

No it’s stuffed, do not have the time to correct.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

witty stuffed it. load the thread. DV posted correctly.

No it’s stuffed, do not have the time to correct.

just pointing out who stuffed it. don’t care if it is fixed or not.

Basically PermeateFree is modelling for me the problem this article discusses. If literally everyone took the “all statistics are bullshit” view then we’d have made no advances at all in physics, chemistry, medicine, engineering, biology, geology or any other evidence based field of endeavour.

dv said:

Basically PermeateFree is modelling for me the problem this article discusses. If literally everyone took the “all statistics are bullshit” view then we’d have made no advances at all in physics, chemistry, medicine, engineering, biology, geology or any other evidence based field of endeavour.

The unbelievable arrogance of you dv. You refuse to see how information can be misrepresented in a court of law with so much at stake, just so you can justify the statistics you produce. Wash my hands of it.

gaghalfrunt said:

Apparently Ronald Regan was horrified to be told that 50% of American school kids were below average intelligence and ordered a review of the education system.
( The yanks vote people like this into power and now they have Donald))

I’d be very surprised if that was true

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

witty stuffed it. load the thread. DV posted correctly.

No it’s stuffed, do not have the time to correct.

just pointing out who stuffed it. don’t care if it is fixed or not.

Seeing as I replied to dv’s post that was before Witty’s post, I find your explanation highly improbable.

There’s probably no quick remedy for it, though, and it is hardly just a problem for the judiciary, as evidenced by PermeateFree. Teaching people to understand and assess statistics has to start when they are about eight years old.

Maybe the judiciary needs professionally trained people in statistics?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Maybe the judiciary needs professionally trained people in statistics?

And independent panel of neutral experts whom they can rely upon.

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Maybe the judiciary needs professionally trained people in statistics?

And independent panel of neutral experts whom they can rely upon.

Never going to happen. Everyone needs money. We are all corruptible.

dv said:

There’s probably no quick remedy for it, though, and it is hardly just a problem for the judiciary, as evidenced by PermeateFree. Teaching people to understand and assess statistics has to start when they are about eight years old.

It is NOT the ability of understanding statistics, but the statistics themselves concerning the information used to compile them and the motive of the people who made and presented them. Unless the receiver of the stats. is an expert in the field, then the statistics are easily manipulated to show whatever is required by the compiler and can mislead or deceive. This is not what you need in a court of law, where much can depend on the outcome.

dv said:

There’s probably no quick remedy for it, though, and it is hardly just a problem for the judiciary, as evidenced by PermeateFree. Teaching people to understand and assess statistics has to start when they are about eight years old.

For your information dv, I am well versed in statistics and your posts on the subject, both here and in the past, indicate your understanding is very restricted to to your own business interests and does not relate well to the more variable social situations.

Other than the mutual insults, I agree with both Permeate and dv.

At least in part.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Other than the mutual insults, I agree with both Permeate and dv.

At least in part.

You’re worse than Hitler.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Other than the mutual insults, I agree with both Permeate and dv.

At least in part.

You’re worse than Trump.

*fixed

poikilotherm said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Other than the mutual insults, I agree with both Permeate and dv.

At least in part.

You’re worse than Trump.

*fixed

How can that be?

I disapprove of both genocide and pussy-grabbing.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Anyone can make up statistics and use whatever information they wish.

And any intelligent person can investigate the statistics to determine whether or not they are meaningful and accurate.

Statistics can be used to prove whatever you wish them to prove. They do not necessarily represent the truth.

You cannot prove anything that is not true.

It is only true relating to the information selected and used. The information might be true, but collectively and the way presented does not necessarily represent the truth. So in a court of law, besides deciding the truth of the defendant, they must also decide the intent and truthfulness of the statistician.

Just for the record of who said what.

I read the article last night, but it was on my phone and it is too difficult to post from that.

The thing that really surprised me and stood out in the article was that the USA has 9 supreme court wallahs and they all went to either Harvard or Yale.

sibeen said:

I read the article last night, but it was on my phone and it is too difficult to post from that.

The thing that really surprised me and stood out in the article was that the USA has 9 supreme court wallahs and they all went to either Harvard or Yale.

Well they do have prestigious schools.

One thing seriously anomalous is that until this year, all of the Justices were either Catholic or Jewish. The new boy, Gorsuch, was raised Catholic but now attends an Episcopalian church, without having converted.