## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by wildcat
Define field.
I guess there are several definitions. The one I had in mind (and I usually do have in mind when I think of statistics) , is, a space, period of time or situation characterised by elements with at least one, or more, similar attribute/property.

3. Originally Posted by Night
No, I didn't (or at least I don't understand how so).
Wildcat said in the OP that statistics reflect/are bound to the field, I answered that statistics are totally unbound of the field, which is why they are not always credible.
With my definition of field, I cannot see how this two statements are not contradictory.

4. Originally Posted by wildcat
What is wrong with statistics?
It is dependent of the field.

Field dependence (hence it) dictates an answer.

(that is) An echo.
Originally Posted by lastrailway
I disagree. In my opinion, what is really wrong with statistics is that it doesn't depend on anything, except what you want to prove. It can be something totally out of the field, totally irrelevant, though statistics tries to draw persuasive correlation where there is little or none.
put the bolded words together. There is no contradiction.

the echo is the answer that one sought--ie, what one wants to prove. hence, what field (sample group) you choose is consciously (or unconsciously) dependent on the answer you wanted at the start.

isn't it? now i'm confused.

5. Originally Posted by elfinchilde
put the bolded words together. There is no contradiction.

the echo is the answer that one sought--ie, what one wants to prove. hence, what field (sample group) you choose is consciously (or unconsciously) dependent on the answer you wanted at the start.

isn't it? now i'm confused.
Yeah, probably you're right. I took it that by field we mean the relevant field, the field of the data (the source/ the cause). Apparently we were talking instead of the field of the answer.
It's the problem I always have when I wake up. I don't understand anything for several hours. Maybe I shouldn't be posting during that period .

6. Originally Posted by lastrailway
Yeah, probably you're right. I took it that by field we mean the relevant field, the field of the data (the source/ the cause). Apparently we were talking instead of the field of the answer.
It's the problem I always have when I wake up. I don't understand anything for several hours. Maybe I shouldn't be posting during that period .
lol. wildcat's the master of this thread. we'll let him do the confirmation. yea, I did read it as field of the answer though...

nono, post! that's when the subconscious mind takes over!

7. Originally Posted by lastrailway
Yeah, probably you're right. I took it that by field we mean the relevant field, the field of the data (the source/ the cause). Apparently we were talking instead of the field of the answer.
It's the problem I always have when I wake up. I don't understand anything for several hours. Maybe I shouldn't be posting during that period .
There is no contradiction. A word can be used in multiple meanings.
Both ways they are correct in the way they are used.
You were right as usual.
I do not understand anything in the morning either.
It does not matter. Let us keep on posting all the same.

8. Originally Posted by elfinchilde
put the bolded words together. There is no contradiction.

the echo is the answer that one sought--ie, what one wants to prove. hence, what field (sample group) you choose is consciously (or unconsciously) dependent on the answer you wanted at the start.

isn't it? now i'm confused.
Do not be confused elfie. You are perfectly right.
And thank you for the definition.
The elves know best.

9. Originally Posted by Nocapszy
Well I suppose...

Hmm...

I'm not entirely sure why I said it that way.

I prefer to use statistics more for prediction than for analysis. The field work (I'm assuming you meant field as opposed to armchair work) is the qualitative and statistics are quantitative. The two are connected -- they work together.

Two different types of calculating to get the same result.

Anyway my interpretation of the OP was that statistics were simply a quantitative echo -- not an answer -- of the inputted quality information.
The change from the quantitative to the qualitative does not take place on the ground level.
It can only be seen in a distance.
Statistics does not provide the distance.

10. Originally Posted by Night
Given the subtext of this thread, Palahniuk quotes seems altogether (in)appropriate.
Chuck is the king of quotes.

A lovely avatar.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•