Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up

Proof that statistics can prove anything

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rick

C&B Member
May 18, 2005
11,270
513
13,763
#1
The fans are to blame for City poor home form last season, why the facts are here.

Last season when our attendances were above 10,000 we only lost 1 game (to Hull City).
But when our attendance dipped below 10,000 we lost 10 games this clearly shows that the fans are to blame for our lack of home form.



We can't beat teams with the inital B

This is based on the fact that this season when we play teams with the inital B we have a 0% record against them.



City play better on a weekend compared to a weekday

This is based on the fact that we have amassed 8 points from games played on Saturday and Sunday but on gained 4 points on games during the week.

They are all facts but they are also all useless facts which are just posted to provide a biased opinion, just proving that you can taylor statistics to prove what you want nowadays, the government do it all the time.;)
 

Rick

C&B Member
May 18, 2005
11,270
513
13,763
#2
beerbantam said:
Statistics can never "prove" anything. All a statistical test can do is assign a probability to the data you have, indicating the likelihood (or probability) that these numbers come from random fluctuations in sampling. If this likelihood is low, a better decision might be to conclude that maybe these aren't random fluctuations that are being observed. Maybe there is a systematic, predictable, or understandable, relationship going on? In this case, we reject the initial randomness hypothesis in favour of one that says, "Yes we do have a real relationship here" and then go on to discuss or speculate about this relationship. How has this discovery of a real relationship, or this piece of new knowledge, going to help us understand behaviour? How have we solved some particular theoretical or practical problem out there in the general mass of humanity!

Uncertainty is present whenever we deal with samples rather than populations in that we can never claim anything about populations with 100% certainty. The goal of the game of statistical inference, is to keep the level of uncertainty in our results within acceptable limits. Notice how the word "acceptable" implies an element of human judgement (i.e., subjectivity). This is a correct perception; what counts as an acceptably low level of uncertainty (even though it may be an objective or analytically established probability) depends upon who you ask and how strong your arguments are in defence of your claims. There is no absolute standard against which the errors associated with statistical claims may be judged. We say this to provide you with a realistic perspective on statistical analysis of behavioural data - all statistical procedures do is "crunch the numbers" (this is the "objective" aspect); however, humans must ultimately decide what is to be made of those numbers (this is the "subjective" part).:D
Did you write that yourself or did you copy it from here?

Is this Beerbantams copy and paste link?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.