<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with statistics and science</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/statistics+science</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'statistics' and 'science' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:36:36 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:36:36 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Common Sense</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/84619/Common%2DSense</link>
		<description> C0nc0rdance [sytl] asks; &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60uJ7sOx_1A&quot;&gt;How far should we trust common sense?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;
A less than 9 min video on Common Sense as it relates to Science. Enjoy.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2009:site.84619</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:36:36 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>CommonSense</category>
		<category>creation</category>
		<category>design</category>
		<category>Einstein</category>
		<category>evolution</category>
		<category>intelligent</category>
		<category>MontyHall</category>
		<category>science</category>
		<category>scientific</category>
		<category>Slyt</category>
		<category>statistics</category>
		<dc:creator>nola</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Animal Planet investigates alcoholism in monkeys</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/67339/Animal%2DPlanet%2Dinvestigates%2Dalcoholism%2Din%2Dmonkeys</link>
		<description> &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYuIYNaKynI&quot;&gt;Significantly, the percentage of monkeys and humans who avoid alcohol is the same.&lt;/a&gt;&quot; &lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;[YouTube]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2007:site.67339</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:32:42 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>alcohol</category>
		<category>alcoholism</category>
		<category>animalplanet</category>
		<category>drinking</category>
		<category>drunk</category>
		<category>leadership</category>
		<category>monkey</category>
		<category>monkeys</category>
		<category>saintkitts</category>
		<category>science</category>
		<category>SCIENCE!</category>
		<category>statistics</category>
		<category>youtube</category>
		<dc:creator>finite</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>The Number</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/59263/The%2DNumber</link>
		<description> &lt;blockquote&gt;Whatever one&apos;s opinion of its possible limitations, the 2006 Iraq mortality survey produced epidemiological evidence that coalition forces have failed to protect Iraqi civilians... If, for the sake of argument, the study is wrong and the number of Iraqi deaths is less than half the infamous figure, is it acceptable that &quot;only&quot; 300,000 have died? Last November, with no explanation, the Iraqi Ministry of Health suddenly began citing 150,000 dead, five times its previous estimate. Is that amount of death acceptable? In January, the United Nations reported that more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed violently in the last year alone. Is that acceptable?
&lt;/blockquote&gt;Regarding &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0207web/number.html&quot; title=&quot;An Iraqi physician who participated in both surveys... said, &apos;From the moral point of view, I have learned that when everybody is afraid to say the truth then there should be somebody who volunteers to say it, on the belief that we are all going to die some day, either after doing nothing or after doing something. The main point is that people outside Iraq do not realize the real disaster we are suffering. Only the Iraqi people know that, simply because the foreigners are listening to the news while we are living the events on the ground.&apos;&quot;&gt;The Number&lt;/a&gt;, the result of what one of the study&apos;s authors calls &lt;a href=&quot;http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece&quot; title=&quot;...How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests? If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people ?&apos;&quot;&gt;an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide&lt;/a&gt;... [more within]  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2007:site.59263</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:32:53 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Death</category>
		<category>Genocide</category>
		<category>Iraq</category>
		<category>Science</category>
		<category>Statistics</category>
		<dc:creator>y2karl</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Iraqi Death Rate May Top Our Civil War:  Deaths in Iraq: How Many, and Why It Matters</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/55663/Iraqi%2DDeath%2DRate%2DMay%2DTop%2DOur%2DCivil%2DWar%2DDeaths%2Din%2DIraq%2DHow%2DMany%2Dand%2DWhy%2DIt%2DMatters</link>
		<description> &lt;blockquote&gt;...Would it surprise you to learn that if the Johns Hopkins estimates of 400,000 to 800,000 deaths are correct -- and many experts in the survey field seem to suggest they probably are -- that the supposedly not-yet-civil-war in Iraq has already cost more lives, per capita, than our own Civil War (one in 40 of all Iraqis alive in 2003) ? And that these losses are comparable to what some European nations suffered in World War II ? You&apos;d never know it from mainstream press coverage in the U.S. &quot;Everybody knows the boat is leaking, everybody knows the captain lied,&quot; Leonard Cohen once sang. The question the new study raises: How many will go down with the ship, and will the press finally hold the captain fully accountable ?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://editorandpublisher.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&amp;title=Part+II%3A+Iraqi+Death+Rate+May+Top+Our+Civil+War+--+But+Will+the+Press+Confirm+It%3F&amp;expire=&amp;urlID=19839059&amp;fb=Y&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorandpublisher.com%2Feandp%2Fcolumns%2Fpressingissues_display.jsp%3Fvnu_content_id%3D1003255073&amp;partnerID=60&quot; title=&quot;The press, after its initial coverage, has turned away from the shocking Johns Hopkins study which estimated 400,000 to 800,000 deaths in the Iraq War since 2003. One of the authors of the study has issued a challenge: check out their findings in the field -- and then confirm or debunk it...&quot;&gt;Iraqi Death Rate May Top Our Civil War -- But Will the Press Confirm It ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/debating_the_body_count_in_ira.php&quot; title=&quot;There are two reasons for thinking the survey might be more accurate than has been portrayed, both of which were not mentioned much yesterday. First, the researchers were able to duplicate, with different households, the results of a survey they conducted two years ago (which was also widely disputed) that put the death toll then at 100,000. And secondly, the pre-invasion mortality rate of 5.5 per 1,000 people per year, found in both surveys, is similar to the estimate used by the CIA and the U.S. Census Bureau...&quot;&gt;Debating the Body Count in Iraq&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/ViewPopUpArticle.jsp?id=2&amp;articleId=4011&quot; title=&quot;How many civilians have died in Iraq? Iraq Body Count and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health give widely different answers. Michel Thieren examines what is at stake in their contrasting approaches and estimates.&quot;&gt;Deaths in Iraq: how many, and why it matters&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;See also 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stats.org/stories/the_science_ct_dead_oct17_06.htm&quot; title=&quot;A recent study published in the Lancet claims that over 650,000 &apos;excess&apos; deaths have occurred in Iraq since the invasion in March, 2003. STATS look at how scientists figure these numbers out, how their methods compare to other counts, and whether criticism of the numbers is justified.&quot;&gt;The Science of Counting the Dead&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stats.org/stories/how_media_lancet_iraq_oct13_06.htm&quot; title=&quot;A surprising inability to convey the study&#8217;s findings accurately ... What makes these errors particularly egregious is that the same authors, using the same methods, published earlier findings from this research project only two years ago, in October 2004. They reached the same conclusion, that the number of Iraqi deaths attributable to the war was far higher than any previous estimate. Finally, their report produced the same sort of controversy that has recurred this month. You might expect, therefore, that some of the world&#8217;s leading news organizations would be at an advantage in reporting the facts this time around. But you would be wrong.&quot;&gt;How the Media Covered The Lancet&#8217;s Iraqi Casualty Study&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://search.japantimes.co.jp/print/eo20061016a1.html&quot; title=&quot;The most disturbing thing is the breakdown of the causes of death. Over half the deaths -- 56 percent -- are due to gunshot wounds, but 13 percent are due to airstrikes. Terrorists don&apos;t do airstrikes. No Iraqi government forces do airstrikes, either, because they don&apos;t have combat aircraft. Airstrikes are done by &apos;coalition forces&apos; (i.e. Americans and British), and airstrikes in Iraq have killed over 75,000 people since the invasion. Oscar Wilde once observed that &apos;to lose one parent . . . may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.&apos; To lose 75,000 Iraqis to airstrikes looks like carelessness, too.&quot;&gt;More deadly than Saddam&lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2006:site.55663</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:23:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Death</category>
		<category>Denial</category>
		<category>Iraq</category>
		<category>Science</category>
		<category>Statistics</category>
		<category>War</category>
		<category>Warcrimes</category>
		<dc:creator>y2karl</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>The Complexity of a Controversial Concept</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/42922/The%2DComplexity%2Dof%2Da%2DControversial%2DConcept</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://bactra.org/bulletin/logic-of-diversity.html"&gt;The Logic of Diversity&lt;/a&gt; &quot;A new book, &lt;i&gt;The Wisdom of Crowds&lt;/i&gt; [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/33307&quot;&gt;..:&lt;/a&gt;]  by &lt;a href=&quot;http://greg.org/archive/new_yorker_magazine_database.php&quot;&gt;The New Yorker&lt;/a&gt; columnist James Surowiecki, has recently popularized the idea that groups can, in some ways, be smarter than their members, which is superficially similar to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~spage/&quot;&gt;Page&apos;s results&lt;/a&gt;. While Surowiecki gives many examples of what one might call collective cognition, where groups out-perform isolated individuals, he really has only one explanation for this phenomenon, based on one of his examples: jelly beans [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/contest.html&quot;&gt;...&lt;/a&gt;] averaging together many independent, unbiased guesses gives a result that is probably closer to the truth than any one guess. While true &#8212; it&apos;s the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem&quot;&gt;central limit theorem&lt;/a&gt; of statistics &#8212; it&apos;s far from being the only way in which &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cscs.umich.edu/diversity/&quot;&gt;diversity&lt;/a&gt; can be beneficial in problem solving.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://bactra.org/weblog/362.html&quot;&gt;(Three-Toed Sloth)&lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.42922</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:03:37 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>complexity</category>
		<category>diversity</category>
		<category>evolution</category>
		<category>heuristics</category>
		<category>logic</category>
		<category>math</category>
		<category>mathematics</category>
		<category>physics</category>
		<category>probability</category>
		<category>research</category>
		<category>science</category>
		<category>statistics</category>
		<dc:creator>kliuless</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Self Experimentation is Credible Science??</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/41053/Self%2DExperimentation%2Dis%2DCredible%2DScience</link>
		<description> &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Chance favours the prepared mind&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;small&gt;(Pasteur)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;strong&gt;but can a science
of n = 1 be credible?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://psychology.berkeley.edu/directories/facultypages/robertsresearch.html&quot;&gt;Seth Roberts&lt;/a&gt; is a UCBerkeley Psychology Professor who is into generating novel scientific ideas from &lt;a href=&quot;http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~roberts/self/&quot;&gt;self-experimentation&lt;/a&gt;. He has written a &lt;a href=&quot;http://repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/117/&quot;&gt;very serious journal article&lt;/a&gt; &lt;small&gt;(abstract) &lt;/small&gt; in &lt;strong&gt;Behaviour and Brain Science &lt;/strong&gt;in which he alleges:  &lt;small&gt;Seeing faces in the morning on television decreased mood in the evening and improved mood the next day . . . Standing 8 hours per day reduced early awakening and made sleep more restorative . . . Drinking unflavored fructose water caused a large weight loss that has lasted more than 1 year..&lt;/small&gt; among other things.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1315&amp;context=postprints&quot;&gt;The entire paper was published along with formal peer reviews and a response from Roberts&lt;/a&gt; [warning: 63page .pdf] (Peers came down about 50:50 in support/dissenting)  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2005/03/learning_from_s.html&quot;&gt;A short review/discussion of the article&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2005/03/&quot;&gt;followup&lt;/a&gt; and a &lt;a href=&quot;http://psychology.berkeley.edu/pdf/roberts-replications.pdf&quot;&gt;short followup Roberts paper with experimental replications (pdf)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;small&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/&quot;&gt;via&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/small&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.41053</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:11:37 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>psychology</category>
		<category>science</category>
		<category>selfexperimentation</category>
		<category>statistics</category>
		<dc:creator>peacay</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Could Tucker be right?</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/37700/Could%2DTucker%2Dbe%2Dright</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/ineas-aes.nsf/en/h_ra01886e.html"&gt;Canada&apos;s &quot;Brain Drain&quot;&lt;/a&gt; has been a growing concern among Canadians for a number of years.  There are a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.statcan.ca/english/studies/81-003/feature/eqhi2000006003s1a01.htm&quot;&gt;number&lt;/a&gt; of &lt;a href=&quot;http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/ineas-aes.nsf/vwapj/HAND_E.PDF/$FILE/HAND_E.PDF&quot;&gt;reports (PDF)&lt;/a&gt; indicating that an increasing number of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cric.ca/en_html/guide/brain/brain.html&quot;&gt;&quot;highly skilled graduates in fields such as health, engineering and natural and applied sciences&quot;&lt;/a&gt; have been heading south for work.  There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.magma.ca/~jagwar/cdnGuideBrainDrain/cdnGuideBrainDrain/cdnGuideBrainDrain.html&quot;&gt;guides&lt;/a&gt; to assist, &lt;a href=&quot;http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/01/12/actor_moves010112&quot;&gt;first hand accounts&lt;/a&gt;, and even &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canadasbraindrain.ca/4gone/&quot;&gt;profiles&lt;/a&gt; of people who have left.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.37700</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:06:40 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>arts</category>
		<category>braindrain</category>
		<category>canada</category>
		<category>emigration</category>
		<category>science</category>
		<category>statistics</category>
		<category>unitedstates</category>
		<dc:creator>purephase</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


