 |
 |
At 15:56 03/03/2016 +0000, Kevin.Mcconway wrote: >I'd agree with Rachel. But I'd also be concerned about the whole idea, in >that we also need to emphasise good uses of statistics. There's a risk >that we might give people the idea that it's all damned lies. I have to say that the same was my first reaction when I read this proposal (well-intentioned though it is). The "damned lies" issue is already a big enough problem in terms of public perception of, and public opinions/views about, 'statistics', and if we were to fuel that further by highlighting many cases which were (for want of a better term!) "damned lies", things could easily just get worse! Human nature being what it is, I would have thought that the approach more likely to improve public perception and understanding would be to 'major on' the 'good uses of statistics' and, within that context, to 'mention' contrasting examples of 'Bad Stats'. .... but that is, of course, just my humble opinion!! Kind Regards, John ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225 Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893 Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask] Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK ---------------------------------------------------------------- ****************************************************** 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] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************