Re: Getting ahead: College grads wages drop 5.2% since 2000
- From: Rabid Weasel <lawson@NO24805SPAM+dayton.net>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:11:45 GMT
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:48:47 +0000, David L. Burkhead wrote:
You can say that all you want, but it is _you_ who are presuming data
not in evidence. For one thing, I did not say the sample _must_ have
changed. That's your straw man. I am said that it _might_ have changed.
You do know the difference between "might" and "must" don't you? It's the
difference between knowing something and not knowing something.
halstistics: If you don't know the occurrence or distribution of a
variable, you *MUST ASSUME* 50% occurrence and distribution.
It's the
difference between drawing conclusions from data and exceeding the data that
you have.
Oh geez, he does this all the frick'n time. Goes at least as far back as
his inability to understand the Kleck stats.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
.
- References:
- Re: Getting ahead: College grads wages drop 5.2% since 2000
- From: David L. Burkhead
- Re: Getting ahead: College grads wages drop 5.2% since 2000
- Prev by Date: Some intelligent commentary on "proportionality"
- Next by Date: Re: That's how they've put a stop on premarital sex in Iran...
- Previous by thread: Re: Getting ahead: College grads wages drop 5.2% since 2000
- Next by thread: Some intelligent commentary on "proportionality"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
