Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut
SO TRUE! The absolute BEST example was this convoluted post by Evanstar:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5&postcount=48
So many variables involved yet she concludes that, and I quote:
2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.
Talk about a leap. I suggest you submit that to your professor Evanstar. You are making assumptions that you can not apply mathematics to. It's called human nature. So you get a study that actually TELLS you that in fact a tiny percentage of boats exceed 50mph and you EXTRAPOLATE the data to suit your claim. . . .
FYI: I submitted this "equation" to a fellow colleague, Math Teacher, who commented "in theory yes this math is acceptable, however we don't live in white rooms with lab coats. This is great on paper but in the real world there are far too many variables for this to hold any water in a scientific discussion." End quote. |
Does that colleague of yours have a PHD in Political Science or in Public Relations? Because those are the qualifications of the professors who taught me to do statistical analysis. Where do you think people learn this stuff - I'm attending one of the best private universities in New England - I really think my professors know about this than you or your colleague.
Has your colleague ever taken a course in Research Methodology? Because I have,and this is the correct way to do statistical analysis. BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.
You guys try to use the speed study as proof that we don't need a speed limit, without plugging the raw data back into the environment - which actually needs to happen for it to have any meaning. Then you don't like the result - so you attack me, because you don't know how to attack my analysis.
So far you have criticized my statical analysis without backing up your criticism at all - again, show me what is wrong with my analysis, rather than just being critical because you don't like the results.
My best friend's father is a civil engineer who does traffic studies and uses the exact same kind of statistical analysis as I did. There is nothing wrong with my analysis. They way that I did is is correct - this is how you do statistical analysis.
No, it's not a lab - but when you do research studies on the public, it has to be treated just like a lab to be a viable study.
The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered. I used a very generous percentage - which is way larger than what the actual percentage likely was. Do you contend that the study area covered more than 25% of the lake? The other thing that I don't have is the margin of error - because that want never published in the study (yet all viable statistical studies include a margin of error, to show how accurate the results were). I didn't plug in the margin of error because it is unknown.