welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Sept. 6: Veggie detector!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 23, 24, 25
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ember778



Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 378

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
i hate to ruin a good argument with actual facts, but it turns out that the council of graduate schools has an actual website. with links to their reports and methods and all like that.



spoiler alert! they don't poll graduate students at all.


If they don't poll grads then how would it ruin the argument?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5268
Location: No.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cuz.

sample variance
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2433

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
I did not make the scientific method, I just use it.

Lich Mong wrote:
Is the percentage for the scientific method used for hypothesis testing in most fields (not all).

And, honestly, saying like you are makes me think you really don't understand what "the scientific method" is. Or, if you find my way of saying that too insulting, that my understanding of it is drastically different from yours.

You made up sample numbers, I requested you make them larger to better mirror the robustness I expect from the Council of Graduate Schools' numbers, and instead of using the numbers I asked you to use, you inserted a much, much larger number for total population.

You presented your results, as though they were calculated from my request, without telling me that you had wildly changed the numbers you were using. Then you mocked me, claiming that "my" numbers didn't show what I wanted. And now, you still won't tell me the number you used so I can in any way check your work.

What part of the scientific method includes deliberately hiding your methodology to achieve your results so no one can check or repeat your calculation? What part of the scientific method involves deliberately altering your assumptions to get the numbers you want, but then presenting them as a fair comparison? Yeah, I'm pretty glad that I apparently do not have the same "understanding" of scientific method as you.

Lich Mong wrote:
No data is "meaningless," and it is dishonest for you to claim I stated any of it was.

I asked you if the data is meaningless, which was indeed rhetorical and loaded. I did not claim you stated that the data was meaningless.

Lich Mong wrote:
I am answering your questions, you just don't like my answers because they don't fit into your strawman interpretation of my argument.

I don't like your answers because they don't actually answer my questions.

Lich Mong wrote:
I see you've not checked your sources. Normally a bad idea. Especially when the guy your arguing against knows he picked them up from someone's blog.

I am unable to answer this fairly, as mouse has spoiled me with regard to how the Council gathers their data. Doesn't look good for you, though. Good thing I didn't take you up on that bet for your house, neh?

Lich Mong wrote:
Sorry, I thought we were still talking about "difference between the success of men and women in Engineering."
Which subject are we talking about? Should I have used the biology majors? All countries everywhere? What are you objecting too?

Actually, we were talking about example numbers. That you deliberately looked up data, and only inserted the one number that gave you the result you wanted into your calculation of "my" numbers is what I object to. It is literally astonishing to me that you think you can bluff your way past that.

Lich Mong wrote:
What I have already told you I feel is sufficient. If you feel otherwise you should get the real number yourself and prove me wrong.

You are wrong regardless of what the real number is, because we weren't talking about the real total population, and if you wanted to use the real total population, you should also have been honest enough to use the real sample size and real mean. You are also much more wrong than that, because of how intensely dishonest you've been throughout this conversation. You should still have a nice day, though. Don't let this bring you down.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
You made up sample numbers, I requested you make them larger to better mirror the robustness I expect from the Council of Graduate Schools' numbers, and instead of using the numbers I asked you to use, you inserted a much, much larger number for total population.
No shit.
The actual total population IS much much larger. Additionally, don't make it seem like I "sneaked it in" or something. I explicitly stated what I did.
Sojobo wrote:

You presented your results, as though they were calculated from my request, without telling me that you had wildly changed the numbers you were using. Then you mocked me, claiming that "my" numbers didn't show what I wanted. And now, you still won't tell me the number you used so I can in any way check your work.
lol, wut?
Lich Mong wrote:

For your 1000 people example, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation(which i still have even though my browser ate my post, thank God) and came up with a 35 student error for US graduate engineers, so....

Since you apparently did not get what I meant by that (not that you asked) I later spelled it out for you, around the point I realized that when I said:
Lich Mong wrote:
a +3(student) standard error.

You did not understand I really and truly meant standard error.
So, when I went over it again you made it seem like I had never told you and were trying to be dishonest.
Which would make more sense if I had not been TELLING YOU ALL ALONG what I did.
Sojobo wrote:

What part of the scientific method includes deliberately hiding your methodology to achieve your results so no one can check or repeat your calculation? What part of the scientific method involves deliberately altering your assumptions to get the numbers you want, but then presenting them as a fair comparison? Yeah, I'm pretty glad that I apparently do not have the same "understanding" of scientific method as you.
This part would be more coherent if I did not tell you everything I was doing from the start. Since I did, it's not. Maybe if you had a better understanding of the terms involved you would not be misreading everything I'm writing.

With each post you make you're making me regret my decision to honor your wishes and not fill my posts with citations like I normally do. Because at this point it's hard for me to tell when you're deliberately strawmanning me from when you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Maybe that was the plan.

Sojobo wrote:

I asked you if the data is meaningless, which was indeed rhetorical and loaded. I did not claim you stated that the data was meaningless.
Good of you to admit it was loaded. But, if it was rhetorical why did you say "I'd still like you to answer the questions, by the way, though I don't really expect it" and earlier "Go ahead and answer my first question in this post" ?
Odd things to say about a 'rhetorical' question, but not about a loaded one you're hoping to trip me up with.

Anyway,
Maybe if you stopped implying untrue things I would stop accusing you of claiming them. I guess I should be happy that the only trick of yours I constantly fall for is assuming you're claiming something you're only HEAVLY implying.
You got me there.
Sojobo wrote:

I don't like your answers because they don't actually answer my questions.
It's true, I don't like answering loaded questions.

Sojobo wrote:

I am unable to answer this fairly, as mouse has spoiled me with regard to how the Council gathers their data. Doesn't look good for you, though. Good thing I didn't take you up on that bet for your house, neh?
Oh? I've not looked at the link. How do they get those numbers?

Sojobo wrote:

Actually, we were talking about example numbers. That you deliberately looked up data, and only inserted the one number that gave you the result you wanted into your calculation of "my" numbers is what I object to. It is literally astonishing to me that you think you can bluff your way past that.
True, since I was calculating the standard error, like I said I was, I needed the number of the total population.
So, I did and told you I did it. You apparently didn't read that part, and when I later reiterated it latched on to it as something you could FINALLY use against me.

Which is twofold amusing.


Sojobo wrote:

You are wrong regardless of what the real number is, because we weren't talking about the real total population, and if you wanted to use the real total population, you should also have been honest enough to use the real sample size and real mean. You are also much more wrong than that, because of how intensely dishonest you've been throughout this conversation. You should still have a nice day, though. Don't let this bring you down.
I'll not. (I assure you, the amount this day is ruined cannot be influenced by you at this point.)


I will also note you have apparently given up calculating the error yourself. Pitty, I was still hoping you might learn something from all this. I have to say, I--myself--have learned quite a bit. Not the least of which being Karma is a bitch (I really did act just like you not a handful of years ago. That's why Crushing00 hated me..... I understand now.)
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2433

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
The actual total population IS much much larger. Additionally, don't make it seem like I "sneaked it in" or something. I explicitly stated what I did.

You did sneak it in. You mocked me for my numbers not having the result I said they would. They didn't have that result because you used a different population. You presented it as though you were making a fair comparison, and when I asked you how you got the number, because it seemed wrong, you wouldn't tell me. You are completely full of shit.

Lich Mong wrote:
For your 1000 people example, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation(which i still have even though my browser ate my post, thank God) and came up with a 35 student error for US graduate engineers, so....

And from this I should have inferred that you, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, checked several sources and cobbled together a larger number to use for population, instead of just multiplying by 10 to keep the same proportion of the population? And when you mocked me for "my" numbers not working out, I should have inferred that you actually didn't mean my numbers, but rather my numbers with one large change?

Lich Mong wrote:
You did not understand I really and truly meant standard error.

You are correct that I didn't understand that you meant standard error. Has absolutely nothing to do with your dishonesty, though.

Lich Mong wrote:
This part would be more coherent if I did not tell you everything I was doing from the start. Since I did, it's not

You didn't, and therefore it is.

Lich Mong wrote:
ith each post you make you're making me regret my decision to honor your wishes and not fill my posts with citations like I normally do.

My wish? I complained about one citation, which you plainly used to be condescending rather than to be helpful. Whatever else is in your head about this is just that, in your head. I have actually directly asked you for the formula you used, and your source for the population, and you refused. Don't pretend any of this is on me.

Lich Mong wrote:
Because at this point it's hard for me to tell when you're deliberately strawmanning me

You have been a much greater example of literally every shady tactic you have accused me of in this conversation. Every time you say you used to argue like me is deeply ironic, because in every post you have been arguing much more dishonestly than I. You have been the strawmanner, you have been the one making up wild numbers, you have been the one misrepresenting and insulting and trying to "win" and "save face".

Lich Mong wrote:
But, if it was rhetorical why

I asked the question for a rhetorical purpose. I was pretty sure you'd understood that the question was rhetorical. Therefore, I added that I would still like an answer. I can't see how that could be more clear.

Lich Mong wrote:
Maybe if you stopped implying untrue things I would stop accusing you of claiming them.

So when you accuse me of claiming things I didn't, that's my fault. And when you think I've accused you of claiming something you didn't, that's my fault. All clear.

Lich Mong wrote:
It's true, I don't like answering loaded questions.

That's funny. Last post you said you were answering them.

Lich Mong wrote:
Oh? I've not looked at the link. How do they get those numbers?

I see you've not checked your sources. Normally a bad idea.

Lich Mong wrote:
True, since I was calculating the standard error, like I said I was, I needed the number of the total population.

You were calculating the standard error of example numbers. You did not need a real number for the total population. You deliberately used that number to skew the new example results.

Lich Mong wrote:
So, I did and told you I did it. You apparently didn't read that part,

This is yet another thing that you can't spin as my misunderstanding. I guarantee you that everyone still reading this thread "apparently didn't read that part" in exactly the same way. Just mentioning "graduate students" in an argument about graduate students does not communicate that you looked up the total number of graduate students and substituted it into the example. If you had wanted to communicate honestly, you would have stated the number you were using. You didn't. If you had wanted to communicate honestly, you wouldn't have then mocked me for "my" numbers not saying what I said they would, you would have stated that you'd changed my numbers because you thought the new number would make the example more representative. You didn't.

Lich Mong wrote:
I will also note you have apparently given up calculating the error yourself.

What value is there in calculating this error, using example numbers that you've changed so they're no longer comparable to the first example?

Lich Mong wrote:
Pitty, I was still hoping you might learn something from all this.

*yawn*
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've decided at this point I simply need to take a deep breath and take a 20 on my will save.

I am sorry we could not see eye to eye on each other's motivation, nor come to an agreement about which error analysis should be used in cases like this.

However, I am most apologetic that it took me so long to see something which I am sure was clear to others long before this. That is, we will not reach such an agreement and with each passing post we only become deeper intrenched in our positions.

I will not be swayed that your inferences held scientific meaning based on the numbers given, and you will not be swayed in that they did not. Saddest of all, neither of us will believe the other was being upfront with them over the course of this discourse.

I see that now when before I could not. As such, there is nothing to be gained from further discussion and I guess we will both have to leave without a mutual understanding.
I need not blame anyone but myself for this outcome. It is a regrettable conclusion, but an inevitable one.

In parting, I will just say it is my greatest hope in all this that my actions towards you here do not color further interactions between us. However, I will understand if they do.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2433

PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
I am sorry we could not see eye to eye on each other's motivation,

I know you want to sound even-handed and fair, here, but my few loaded questions are not of equal deceptive weight to your mocking me for the results of data you massaged.

Lich Mong wrote:
nor come to an agreement about which error analysis should be used in cases like this.

I don't think any error analysis is applicable in cases like this, because the argument is not about a scientific claim. I said that the data implied that Ember was wrong. I didn't say (and now I've said I didn't say quite a few times) that the data prove Ember wrong.

Lich Mong wrote:
I will not be swayed that your inferences held scientific meaning based on the numbers given, and you will not be swayed in that they did not.

Even in this, your conciliatory and "final" post on the subject, you misrepresent me. I do not, and have not ever, claimed that my inference had scientific meaning. I have made it clear from the very beginning of the argument that I was not claiming anything more than that the numbers imply that Ember is wrong, and I have asserted that numerous times throughout the conversation.

If you want to tell the story that we have opposing, unassailable positions, you will have to admit that in calling me wrong, your position is that the numbers do not imply that Ember is wrong.

Lich Mong wrote:
Saddest of all, neither of us will believe the other was being upfront with them over the course of this discourse.

I literally have no idea why you would believe I haven't been upfront. Is it just from the loaded questions? Those were in response to you trying to move the terminology from "imply" to "meaningful" to "hav[ing] scientific weight", even though I'd never mentioned anything of the sort when I made my inferences. (Now the terminology seems to be "scientifically meaningful". It's a bit hard to keep up.)

Lich Mong wrote:
In parting, I will just say it is my greatest hope in all this that my actions towards you here do not color further interactions between us. However, I will understand if they do.

If it does colour further interactions, it won't be particularly severe. I might make a humouristical reference to the argument once or twice or thrice. No, probably not thrice.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 23, 24, 25
Page 25 of 25

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group