womblesaddler wrote:Neil Ravenscroft wrote: What you posted was a bunch of statistics, where there is NO proven correlation. Without a correlation (and I have a degree in the subject), they are NOT facts, but unsubstantiated supposition. That is a very, very dangerous thing to do. You HAVE to prove a link for any statistics to mean anything. You've just been stating your opinion.
Don't make assumptions, becuase you know what assume does.
I have no degree in this subject, but am i right in thinking that raw data is that collected by such means as opinion polls and surveys??
and these "figures" that have been quoted be facts as they show an event that has taken place and show the STATISTICS of the results? I only did one modular in completing my 3 years Economics degree on statistics but im sure im not far from the point in staing this. This giving credibility to the fact, that these figures can be researched and found to be true? making it a fact?
but hey 99% of statistics are all lies, damned lies!! :D
Quite right to be puzzled Womble. There seems to be some confusion between correlation and causation. There can certainly be a strong correlation between two variables without there being any causal connection between them. For example the sales of ice cream and sun cream have a positive correlation, but buying an ice cream does not cause someone to need sun cream, nor vice versa.
To say that without a
correlation the statistics are not facts but unsubstantiated suppositions does not really make any sense at all. Perhaps what was meant was that if you merely have a correlation, but with no proven causal connection, then all you have is unproven speculation.
What Phil was trying to show was the existence of a correlation between Walsall doing well and Richard Money having assistance. I would say that to some extent he succeeded in showing a correlation, and that this gave him some evidence which did support his argument, but that the correlation would certainly not on its own be enough to prove it.