From: Osher Doctorow [log in to unmask], Tues. Jan. 15, 2002 9:38AM

Ray Thomas provides interesting information here, and I would like to make
some comments of my own (those who wish to take their tea are excused).

I am in favor both of the human orientation of the Labour Party and the
individual orientation of the Conservative Party (not to mention the
disorientation of the Anarchists as long as they remain non-violent).  In
fact, I believe that we should accept both positions in almost everything
including statistics, and re-form parties along other directions such as
pro-statistics vs pro-cricket or whatever the particular
discipline/profession happens to be.

I like the idea of National Statistics, and I would only suggest that we
need a counter-balancing department of Individual Statistics to safeguard
the non-mainstream Beethoven-type creative geniuses (Socrates comes to mind
as perhaps the most non-mainstream person who is likely to be missed in
National Statistics, although the citizens of Athens will undoubtedly reach
it in the average/standard deviation.   The Individual Statistics (IS for
short) department would counter-balance every statistical claim of the
mainstream, including mainstream methods and theories, by analyzing in depth
a non-mainstream viewpoint.  For example, in UK we have the David Bohm
supporters (who was sent to a premature grave by Senator McCarthy's
witchhunt no doubt), and we have my own logic-based probability-statistics
non-mainstream viewpoint at the http which I have cited (U. Vienna), and I
will not waste your time but there are at least a dozen non-mainstream
schools of quantitative sciences including Professor Nimtz' at U.
Cologne/Koln.

May the New Year be less violent than the Old Year (if it is any more
violent, we might have to give up New Years celebrations all together if you
follow my meaning).

Osher Doctorow





----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Thomas" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 7:03 AM
Subject: WHAT ARE NATIONAL STATISTICS?


> The first point of puzzlement for anyone thinking about the Draft National
> Statistics Code of Practice might well be 'What exactly are 'National
> Statistics'?   The short answer to that question is as in Alice in
> Wonderland.  National Statistics are those that the National Statistician
> says are National Statistics.
>
> Some statistics like the Retail Price Index are not National Statistics
> because the Government says that they are too important to be left under
the
> control of the National Statistician.   Some are not NS because they
> 'belong' to a government departments that cherish their independence.
And
> some have been refused the NS kitemark because they are not regarded as of
> adequate quality.
>
> In his Introduction Len Cook points out that some will find this
distinction
> 'hard to determine', and interestingly argues 'that means that 'building
> trust in National Statistics will mean building trust in all other
official
> statistics. and vice versa' (p 5).   Len Cook goes on to say that  'some
of
> the standards applicable to National Statistics should be met by all
> official statistics.  At a minimum .. guarenteeing confidentiality , using
> objective   methodology, .. transparency in release practices, meeting
> quality and value for money standards .. (foot of p 5).
>
> This blurring takes us back to the Green Paper of 1998 that tentatively
put
> forward the idea of National Statistics as the 'production of statistics
> intended for public use'.    It would be difficult to argue that the
> government should publish statistics not intended for public use, and
> equally difficult to make any general case for statistics to be produced
but
> not published.  But somehow this tentative idea of National Statistics got
> enshrined in the 200 page National Statistics Work Programme published
this
> year and as a key component of the process of fulfillment of the Labour
> Party's electoral pledge to create an independent statistics service.
>
> It seems doubtful that the Statistics Commission, for example, would not
> take up a matter because the relevant statistics did not formally belong
to
> 'National Statistics'.   It might be interesting to put a question to John
> Kingman on this matter at the meeting on 28th January.   But I suspect
such
> a question would get a woolly answer.   Kingman is an intelligent man who
> will be sure to want to keep his options open.
>
> Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University
> Tel: 01908 679081 Fax 01908 550401
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> 35 Passmore, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> *******************************************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************