Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Metrics Mania and the Countless Counting Problem

Posted by timothy on from the units-of-hate-bottles-of-love dept.

mobkarma writes "Einstein once said, 'Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.' A New York Times article suggests that unless we know how things are counted, we don't know if it's wise to count on the numbers. The problem isn't with statistical tests themselves, but with what we do before and after we run them. If a person starts drinking day in and day out after a cancer diagnosis and dies from acute cirrhosis, did he kill himself? The answers to such questions significantly affect the count."

4 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. How about this by The+Hatchet · · Score: 0, Troll

    We all live our lives as we wish to live them, and realize that statistics are incredibly important to making the world a better, easier place to live in. Sure, they can be wrong sometimes, but I would imagine the general public trusts them a lot less than they should actually be trusted. I mean, global warming is like 99.99999% true, same with evolution, but we still have people who don't have a clue and doubt blatant facts because they don't understand things like the specific heat capacity of water, or that evolution isn't globs of crap off the ground suddenly turning into animals and people.

    Sure, the numbers can sometimes be wrong, but they are not wrong 75% of the time. Not even 50% or 25%, but less. And yes, sometimes we are further off, but it is rare. Should we really ignore important numbers because their is a small chance they are wrong? I am not saying anyone should change everything about their lives due to a single number, but common, this is a bit crazy. I am not trying to be debatative here, just saying hey, it is what it is.

    --
    Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    1. Re:How about this by hsthompson69 · · Score: 0, Troll

      global warming is like 99.99999% true, same with evolution,

      Evolution is a falsifiable hypothesis (find a rabbit fossil in the cambrian period, for example). The theory of catastrophic AGW is a tautology -> more snow means global warming. less snow means global warming. This is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

      Conflating the theory of evolution with AGW is a disservice to the understanding of science -> they aren't even in the same ballpark.

    2. Re:How about this by hsthompson69 · · Score: 0, Troll

      It is simple really. Calculate global heat content. Is it higher than last year? Is it getting steadily higher over the past few decades? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

      Ah, were it so simple. Your observation of increasing temperatures, on any scale, be it from day to day, season to season, year to year or decade to decade, does not show that it is caused by humans.

      Global warming is true beyond reasonable doubt for anyone that has a damn clue about the nature of reality.

      Be more specific. We're talking about a theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, not any momentary global warming or cooling that happens as a matter of natural variation.

      Both are falsifiable, but both are also true.

      No, evolution is falsifiable. The so-called theory of catastrophic AGW is not falsifiable, and is definitely not science.

      How about this -> would historic evidence of rising CO2 but lowering temperatures falsify the theory of catastrophic AGW? If not, why not?

  2. Schrödinger's Cat and Coal by mdsolar · · Score: 0, Troll

    This got censored on climateprogress.org so stop reading if you are sensitive.

    The question of what counts has put coal mining fatality statistics into a strange state. http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/05/05/will-latest-death-be-counted-as-mining-related/ Has President Obama allowed 2010 coal mining fatalities to double 2009 fatalities or is he still one shy of that dubious distinction? If the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) bites the bullet and counts the death as a coal mining fatality, then there will have been 36 so far this year, twice as many as for all of last year. If not, they keep the administration away from that statistic at least for a while. The stakes are high. At 37 fatalities, President Obama will have the highest percentage annual increase in coal mining fatalities of any President ever. His only way out is to close and fence dangerous mines. Current efforts focus on explosion dangers so roof collapses continue apace (fatalities #34 and #35 last month).

    And, these statistics are also coming in the context of investigations into bribery at both the MSHA (Department of Labor) and likely at the Minerals Management Service again (Department of Interior) suggesting that coal mine and oil rig fatalities are caused by official and widespread corruption. Does that bribe count as taxable income?