America By the Numbers

[Dis]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Indeed. Reminds of the Jay Leno bit where he goes to the "person on the street" and asks basic questions you would think everyone would know. The answers are often frightening.

Of course, we don't see in those bits all the people he approached who answered the questions correctly.

the thing about those person on the street segments, I think people purposely answer wrong. I'm almost certain of it. They do it for the laughs of course.

[Dis]

Originally posted by GePap
I think the simple fact is that the distribution of wealth in the US is skewed more than in any other developed country- hence statistics that come from poverty, like infant mortality, are bound to be higher in the US, since we have both more millionaries and more people feeling huger than the Europeans.

I'm not backing away from this issue.

There are no hungry people in the U.S.!!!! Except perhaps homeless people and families.

Poor people eat at McDonald's all time, they are fatter than ever!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whoha


now propose a solution.

Did you check his location field?

[Patroklos]

I especially like when he switches from raw data to percentages, or visa versa, to get the desired shock data.

I like even more how the usual suspects who for some unfathomably reason seem to think they are smarter than average refuse to make the simple converison to see the non issue.

And I love how they attack the people who point out the glaring surface idiocies of what othe OP contains. And then go on to attack those who point out it is based on no researchable sources. If this was a term paper and I was grading it, it would fail miserably.

And how exactly is Europe producing more scientific publications an indication of anything? Is what they are writing about things that are happening in Europe? Is what they are writing about worth a damn? Probobly not important to most here.

And how exactly is the Grad programs in other countries impoving an automatic detrement to the US? Good on them for finally pulling their heads out of their asses in some cases, finally living up to their potential in others, and assuming their rightful place in the world in still others. This says nothing about the quality of our own grad programs, nor does it say anything about where these productive graduates will end up. What is the percentage of Americans working outside the US versus foriegners working here? Bunch of hypocrites in here.

[Pyrodrew]

Re: Re: America By the Numbers

Originally posted by Jon Miller
This is mostly a function of the climate after 9-11, than the schools I believe. It is a terrible hassle to come to the US to study now.
Jon Miller

I agree.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1538&ncid=732&e=10&u=/afp/20050305/wl_uk_afp/britaineducation

Foreign student enrollment drops steeply in Britain

LONDON (AFP) - The numbers of foreign students at British universities has dropped sharply, underscoring the dangers of tough immigration and visa rules.
...
UUK appealed to the British government to follow the US lead in abandoning its tough immigration laws that have led to a steep decline in foreign admissions across the Atlantic.

And, as I've mentioned in other threads, I agree with Pekka that decreasing the number of smart immigrants trying to legally get into this country is not a good idea.

[Drake Tungsten]

Speaking of numbers...

Spoiler:

CBEAST!!!!!

[Pekka]

Pyrodrew, right. It doesn't show in the near future, but in the longer run, it will definitely hurt the possibilities and potential.

Then again, it's not so clear cut case, in the big scheme of things, if parts of the top scientists and future hacks stay in their own countries, or spread around in Asia and Europe more, no doubt will those regions benefit from it, then again, when Europe and Asia and other parts of the world grow more prosperous and catch the US, who says it's bad for US. I can be a good thing economically too. It will definitely be a booster to democracy everywhere, because the good economy can and should mean less povery, which can and should mean less space for fundies, and most importantly their spiritual supporters amongst common men. This in its way will reduce costs of fighting terror and international crime. It should increase competition, and if it raises the minimum wages etc in Asia and other parts of the world, if labor starts costing more, it means maybe more jobs will stay in original countries.

who knows. It's not that clear cut case, BUT for certain making it more difficult for top people to come in and explore and prosper won't do so much good in the future in the regions that the restrictions apply in, directly. In the world of science, I don't think it really matters, the people will keep on inventing and developing no matter where they are, even with a little cheaper tools and environment.

[Odin]

I think the US's problem is that we are still taught to behave as if we still lived in a frontier society, our "rugged idividualism" is not helpful in today's world. Another problem is that many people here hold on to a Calvinist view that laziness is a sin.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

You haven't pointed out a single "factual error" that I've seen, just pointed out some omissions/logical errors on the part of who wrote it.

Regardless, even if you had shown a factual error, it wouldn't mean everything in it is wrong. Care to guess which fallacy that is?

I showed several including:

If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.

Turn out was around 60% so 40% didn't vote and still it's considered a great success and a high turn out rate plus just about every country in the world has endorsed the results. That's a big factual error on the author's part.

BTW I've learned that usually when there is smoke there is fire so if I find the reporter has a few errors then typically he has lots more errors just waiting to be found. It's a good indication that the reporters work can't be trusted or in the very least should be taken with a grain of salt. That's just my hang up though.

Lastly, the comparision I made above between two unfounded claims most certainly was valid. I like to do what I call a reality check on satistics especially satistics from an ideological source since it helps sniff out the BS. If a "fact" sounds false, doesn't add up, and doesn't jive with anything I've read in trusted sources or observed or any of the people I've spoken to have observed then it's likely false. The claim that 20% of Americans think the sub rotates around the news falls into that catagory especially after it's been shown the guy made numerous other distortions and out right factual errors.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In the case of this poll (Earth centric universe), there isn't a lot of wiggle room for such things. Either the Earth goes roun the sun or it doesn't. As far as those who think the Earth goes round the sun in a single day, I suspect its people who got their terminology mixed up, rotation versus revolution.

You could be right but that still leaves the question of if it was a satistical sampling or not. Satistical samplings are expensive to do well and even then the results are often contain large error bars. Since no one in the main stream media ever reported this survey it is sounding like an el cheapo, nonscientific poll who's results are a bit on the questionable sie.

[Ramo]

Oerdin. NSF. National Science Foundation. If you really want to insist that the NSF does crappy polling, the least you could do is bring up substantive problems regarding the poll.

The guy made one single factual error: about Iraq. But he didn't try to document it (note, no paranthetical comment after it). It was his own mistaken opinion. But there certainly not have been "several" errors demonstrated thus far.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I showed several including:

If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.

Turn out was around 60% so 40% didn't vote and still it's considered a great success and a high turn out rate plus just about every country in the world has endorsed the results. That's a big factual error on the author's part.

I repeat--you did not show a factual error, but errors in logic. There is a difference, you know.

The above isn't a factual error, because A) the pieace was written BEFORE the Iraqi elections and B) the author is stating his opinion on reaction, were it to be the case. It's not a case of him saying something purportedly to be a fact which is certainly not true. You did not point out anything of that nature.

I've learned that usually when there is smoke there is fire so if I find the reporter has a few errors then typically he has lots more errors just waiting to be found. It's a good indication that the reporters work can't be trusted or in the very least should be taken with a grain of salt. That's just my hang up though.

Right, and as I said, this is a logical fallacy. Especially since you've failed to point out a real factual error as of yet.

Lastly, the comparision I made above between two unfounded claims most certainly was valid.

Considering he cited an easily-referenced source for the claim (and one that it turned out was entirely correct), I find it bizarre you can still maintain this with any sense of honesty.

The comparison was also invalid because I didn't assert what he said was true, I only stated that believing it false because you haven't personally encountered it is a dumb bit of reasoning. How that translates that I would therefore somehow believe the banana nonsense, I don't know.

I like to do what I call a reality check on satistics especially satistics from an ideological source since it helps sniff out the BS. If a "fact" sounds false, doesn't add up, and doesn't jive with anything

Of course, if you wanted to actually be intellectually honest, you could actually do some research into whether or not an assertion is true, instead of categorically denying it based on your "intuition." That will save you embarrassments such as this where it is shown your "intuition" is dead wrong.

The claim that 20% of Americans think the sub rotates around the news falls into that catagory especially after it's been shown the guy made numerous other distortions and out right factual errors.

Except that it's been shown to be a real statistic from surveys. You're amazing in your logical contortions. Oh, and I reiterate--you haven't shown a factual error yet!

I'll say it just one more time, maybe it will sink in: dismissing claims (especially ones that cite an easily-verified source) based on the argument "I haven't personally encountered it, so it isn't true!" is dumb.