Statistics are:
A way to organize data. Period. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Statistics are not:
The end all by which one proves or disproves a thing. This is because, as any inking of research on your part will reveal, it isn't the data, but rather it is how you perceive the data.

Now you either get that or you don't.

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe in God? Whether yes or no be your answer, prove your stance statistically.

You can't. Your argument is bunk. Here endeth the lesson.

Hmmm... I wouldn't completely agree with your arguments here.

Data/statistics are an important part of any research without which you can't expect anyone to agree with your findings, since all valid research results have to be replicable. And if you are not presenting the data you based your findings on or the method by which you gathered it in the first place - then there's no way for someone else to replicate your research, and, therefore, it has no scientific value. Also perceptions or observations are also a type of data, which have to be carefully collected and coded for further use in a scientific research.

And as for the God argument... there's really nothing scientific about one's beliefs, but on the contrary statistics are very much based on scientific ways of collecting data. But as a rebuttal, I would say quantum physics.

Statistics are:
A way to organize data. Period. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Statistics are not:
The end all by which one proves or disproves a thing. This is because, as any inking of research on your part will reveal, it isn't the data, but rather it is how you perceive the data.

I'm curious to know what then, about this, that you disagree with:



As for God, you beat me to it. Quantum Physics. It pisses me off.

The point is, as you already know (and so too does Canton by the way he just can't bring himself to admit it), is that Stats don't tell the whole story - and lets remove all doubt by simply looking at his own words in post #52. Particularly in the way people throw them around when discussing something like football. Of course there is value in the numbers, but the number's don't tell the whole story. To tell the whole story in such a way you'd need IBM's Watson and that might not even be sufficient.

Now, because Canton can't prove the existence of God, he chooses to become agnostic? I'm sure he has other reasons, but he (purposefully most likely) misses the point.

I can tell you that, statistically speaking, Canton isn't a very good Coach because he's only managed a single championship in a decade.

im agnostic because everything ppl have told me is that god exists but everything ive found in my own life suggests otherwise. because i cant disprove god i cant say hes not real and i cant say he is real because i cant prove that either

one championship in a decade considering the 50 some odd schools that have made the playoffs over that same time is a pretty good ratio if you ask me. especially considering we are a public school

i remember an article that came out of the akron beacon journal a few years ago that mentioned that while only 4% of the schools in ohio are private schools, that 4% of private schools wins about 97% of the state championships in all sports

I'm curious to know what then, about this, that you disagree with:

Statistics are:
A way to organize data. Period. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of data. It deals with all aspects of this, including the planning of data collection in terms of the design of surveys and experiments.

Statistics are not:
The end all by which one proves or disproves a thing. This is because, as any inking of research on your part will reveal, it isn't the data, but rather it is how you perceive the data.