From the source: If launching a war in the name of helping people can ever be a legitimate claim, the proponents of the Iraq war have the duty to show more evidence that the war is actually helping the people of Iraq.And: For the Johns Hopkins study, a civilian dies in Iraq every three minutes from a war that has long perverted the meaning of both the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello. That civilian would not have died if the coalition had not come. For Iraq Body Count, the same story is told almost twice per hour. How much of a difference does it make? That is the political question these two statistics convey to the world, even if statistics themselves... The findings have been shown to be incorrect reflecting poor statistical sampling. The bigger question is the quality of the professors who did the study. They eschewed even simple sampling techniques to prove their point. Soon scientists will be like journalists. Nobody will believe them since they are not objective in their investigations. The findings have been shown to be incorrect reflecting poor statistical sampling.Wrong. They used cluster sampling (they randomly chose locations in Iraq, then streets within those locations, then houses on those streets). They adjusted their confidence interval for the fact that they used cluster sampling (that's why it is so broad, from 425000 to 790000). Even the lower bound estimate, 425,000, is pretty horrigying. Cluster sampling is very well known, and is used to survey Americans as well as as people in conflict zones like Iraq, the Congo, etc. |
View the Top Clips from October 18, 2006
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
