Considering a war with Iran - Page 12

Bluesman · 09-19-2007, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timhaughton

The original Lancet study can be read here.

Further work has been done by:

Iraq Body Count
Just Foreign Policy

The original figures were for about 655,000 as of June or July last year if memory serves. The JustForeignPolicy figures use an odd kind of extrapolation technique to get their figures of just over a million deaths, personally I don't like their technique and wouldn't put great stock in it. I think the number is probably closer to 750,000 than a million. But what's a quarter million Iraqis?

I'll tell you what it is, dumbass: a total lie. The Lancet 'study' that you put so much stock in has been de-bunked more often than a gay sailor on the HMS La-De-Da. And the fact that you don't know that - or think that none of us would - marks you as a cretinous, pig-ignorant, ****-for-brains little pile of camel sputum.

Are you really going to sling that up against our pure white walls, and expect to get away with it?

LOOK IT UP, jackass! It's been totally blown to smithereens, as has every single one of your assertions in this Board!

Worthless little punk.

Bluesman · 09-19-2007, 04:27 AM

If haughton worked for Lancet in Iraq:

Bluesman · 09-19-2007, 04:32 AM

Even better:

timhaughton · 09-19-2007, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I'll tell you what it is, dumbass: a total lie. The Lancet 'study' that you put so much stock in has been de-bunked more often than a gay sailor on the HMS La-De-Da.

Eloquently put. Name one credible scientific source. Your position of "la la la la I'm not listening" doesn't count as a credible debunking.

Time to take your meds Bluesman.

Bluesman · 09-19-2007, 04:47 AM

Time for you to go huff some more glue, jag-off.

Bluesman · 09-19-2007, 04:50 AM

Have you looked it up? Are you aware that the 'study' you're trotting out has been shot full of holes? You already knew that, didn't you, and you're grasping at ANY little thing, no matter how pathetically-inadequate, to try to hold the line, to fend off everybody knowing that you are out of ammo?

You are an oxygen thief.

timhaughton · 09-19-2007, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Have you looked it up? Are you aware that the 'study' you're trotting out has been shot full of holes? You already knew that, didn't you, and you're grasping at ANY little thing, no matter how pathetically-inadequate, to try to hold the line, to fend off everybody knowing that you are out of ammo?.

Just one credible scientific source to back up what you're saying. Just one. C'mon, you can do it. You're sounding a little worried. Not going to lose an argument with a yellow bellied, lilly livered bleeding heart liberal are you?

Bluesman · 09-19-2007, 05:09 AM

I sure as hell CAN do it. Eat THAT.

Bluesman · 09-19-2007, 05:11 AM

And I've NEVER lost an argument to a tosser like yourself. Now, get out of here, you snirp; you've been shot down AGAIN.

And how does this kind of public humiliation feel, anyway?

Bluesman · 09-19-2007, 05:20 AM

A bit about David Kane: Institute Fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University. He presented the paper at the Joint Statistical Meetings, the largest conference of statisticians in North America. If it were in the least little bit flawed, he'd have been savaged by the assembled might of his colleagues.

He was NOT so treated; he was confirmed in his findings. Lancet, on the other hand, became the butt of many a statistician's joke (whatever that might be).

Bluesman · 09-19-2007, 05:24 AM

Here's his bio-paragraph at Harvard's website:

David Kane is the CEO of Kane Capital Management, a quantitative, market-neutral, global equity hedge fund. He has a Ph.D. in Political Economy from Harvard University and a BA in Philosophy and Economics from Williams College. David served as an officer in the United States Marine Corps from 1988 to 1991. He was a lecturer in Government at Harvard in the fall of 2002. David's research interests involve applied empirical finance using open source tools, especially R, the use of which he introduced to the Government Department. David is a member of the Eliot House Senior Common Room.

Bluesman · 09-19-2007, 05:24 AM

You want to keep going, or will that suffice to knock your intellectual dentures down your throught, loser?

timhaughton · 09-19-2007, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I sure as hell CAN do it. Eat THAT.

Outstanding! I am getting very close to doing my victory dance, but please keep punching. I was so hoping you would throw this one at me. You were very quick to post the link, I'm curious, did you read it, and check the references and so on?

One of the "experts" Kane sought the opinion of, and thanked in his paper was Tim Lambert. If you had checked the references, you would know that Tim Lambert completely trashed Kane's poor analysis. He can put it better than I:

Quote:

Here’s what I hope is a simple explanation. Suppose you are counting the average occupancy of cars on a freeway. You look at many cars as they pass and count the occupants and divide by the number of cars. You happen to do this on a weekday during rush hour. You can get the average number of occupants and the variance around that average, from which you can make an estimate of the average occupancy of all cars. No problemo.

You repeat that experiment on a weekend day, and there are more families in cars so the average occupancy happens to go up. However, just by chance, a bus comes by filled with weekend tourists.

The bus is Falluja. The Roberts team made two estimates, one including the bus, and one excluding the bus, and concentrated on the one excluding the bus; then concluded that even if you exclude the bus the average occupancy on weekends went up.

David Kane argues that, according to a model that treats the bus as if it were a car you find two things: 1) the average occupancy on weekends goes up, but 2) the variance goes up so fast that you can no longer exclude the possibility that the average occupancy during weekends went down even though all of your observations went up. In fact, David Kane’s model is so weird that it does not exclude the possibility that the average occupancy of all weekend cars is negative.

Most of us are saying that a model that allows for negative average occupancy is not a good model and should not be used to estimate the difference between the average occupancy on weekdays and weekends. But here’s the kicker: David Kane isn’t just saying that the Roberts team should have included the bus. He’s charging that the Roberts team excluded the bus (i.e., Falluja) because they wanted to hide the fact that, using his weird model that they didn’t use, you couldn’t exclude the possibility that the average car occupancy on weekends dropped.

So even the experts that Kane relies on for his "analysis" completely disagree with him.

You remind me of an overweight prize fighter. You swing some big punches, hoping for the easy knockout, but when youre opponent out-classes you, you tiredly slog on, trying to delay your inevitable defeat.

Loving it.

I'll warm up for my victory dance now. I just need to find my "I just kicked a neocon's ass" T-Shirt.

Bluesman · 09-19-2007, 05:32 AM

This is from a commentary on the relative merit of both Kane's and Lancet's work, which starts with a description of the scientific method:

Quote:

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning,[1] the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these hypotheses for accuracy. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may assist in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. [Emphasis from the original commentary. Bluesman] This practice, called “full disclosure“, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Quote:

Until the Lancet authors release both the data and the methodology, their conclusions, from a scientific viewpoint, cannot and should not be taken seriously, and any conclusions drawn from their study should be suspect. Anyone who uses the data to make a argument, political or otherwise, contributes to the dilution of real science and muddies the debate with unverifiable data. Their arguments, like the study, are also suspect. [Emphasis HERE is most definitely and pointedly MINE, and aimed squarely at the sloped forehead of haughton. - Bluesman.] This is nothing other than Global Warming revisited under a different guise. Using science as a political weapon and removing the fundamental requirement of peer review is - well - bad science.

David Kane’s analysis is worth looking into and the real story here. For the layman, the understanding that what the Lancet group study concluded did not follow one of the basic precepts of practicing science - share all your data and methodology for verification - is noteworthy.

Bluesman · 09-19-2007, 05:36 AM

You seem like a dancer to me, actually. Go for it, prancer.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
‘US had designs on Iran before Iraq invasion’	Ray	The Iranian Question	10	05-01-2008 12:29 PM
Candidates, How would you grapple with Iran's nuclear drive?	FibrillatorD	2008 US Presidential Election	36	08-16-2007 11:11 AM
Israel works on Iran N-strike	Ray	Political Discussions	30	01-14-2007 15:54 PM
Indian Army transformation	Ray	South Asian Defense Topics	36	12-22-2005 02:00 AM
An Article worthy of Lull.....	MIKEMUN	Political Discussions	2	03-18-2005 20:04 PM

09-19-2007, 04:47 AM	#170 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,353 Country:	Time for you to go huff some more glue, jag-off.

09-19-2007, 04:50 AM	#171 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,353 Country:	Have you looked it up? Are you aware that the 'study' you're trotting out has been shot full of holes? You already knew that, didn't you, and you're grasping at ANY little thing, no matter how pathetically-inadequate, to try to hold the line, to fend off everybody knowing that you are out of ammo? You are an oxygen thief.

09-19-2007, 05:09 AM	#173 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,353 Country:	I sure as hell CAN do it. Eat THAT.

09-19-2007, 05:11 AM	#174 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,353 Country:	And I've NEVER lost an argument to a tosser like yourself. Now, get out of here, you snirp; you've been shot down AGAIN. And how does this kind of public humiliation feel, anyway?

09-19-2007, 05:20 AM	#175 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,353 Country:	A bit about David Kane: Institute Fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University. He presented the paper at the Joint Statistical Meetings, the largest conference of statisticians in North America. If it were in the least little bit flawed, he'd have been savaged by the assembled might of his colleagues. He was NOT so treated; he was confirmed in his findings. Lancet, on the other hand, became the butt of many a statistician's joke (whatever that might be).

09-19-2007, 05:24 AM	#176 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,353 Country:	Here's his bio-paragraph at Harvard's website: David Kane is the CEO of Kane Capital Management, a quantitative, market-neutral, global equity hedge fund. He has a Ph.D. in Political Economy from Harvard University and a BA in Philosophy and Economics from Williams College. David served as an officer in the United States Marine Corps from 1988 to 1991. He was a lecturer in Government at Harvard in the fall of 2002. David's research interests involve applied empirical finance using open source tools, especially R, the use of which he introduced to the Government Department. David is a member of the Eliot House Senior Common Room.

09-19-2007, 05:24 AM	#177 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,353 Country:	You want to keep going, or will that suffice to knock your intellectual dentures down your throught, loser?

09-19-2007, 05:36 AM	#180 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,353 Country:	You seem like a dancer to me, actually. Go for it, prancer.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)