does intangibles have a place versus stats

JKool · 03-25-2005, 12:30 PM

Statistics are just one way of summarizing a part of the data, and they should be treated that way. To be useful, they require analysis - that analysis should be provided along with the stats.

Intangibles is just a category. It stands in for all that stuff that cannot be neatly summarized, the way that statistics are.

There are many ways to evaluate art, and guess what, one of them is statistically. Of course, as always, the stats are just one way of summarizing the artwork. Thus, it leaves stuff out. However, it is an accurate way of accounting for those parts of the artwork that have been described by it. Thus, statistics are informative, even in evaluating art. However, as always, stats only tell part of the story.

I don\'t see what the problem is. Statistics just aren\'t a complete way of describing the facts. Other kinds of arguments will be needed. In fact, stats are poorly suited for telling some parts of the story. The catch on 4th and long that takes the ball 16 yards to the opponents 1 yard line with 6 seconds left (and sets up the winning score) is described statistically this way - 1 catch for 16 yards. That hardly says the same thing.

Intangibles cannot be described statistically (except for height, weight, and 40 times, etc.). These are things that matter, but, as Billy points out, ONLY if they are properly described. One cannot simply say \"x has great intangibles\" - what the hell does that mean???

03-25-2005, 12:30 PM	#1
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	does intangibles have a place versus stats Statistics are just one way of summarizing a part of the data, and they should be treated that way. To be useful, they require analysis - that analysis should be provided along with the stats. Intangibles is just a category. It stands in for all that stuff that cannot be neatly summarized, the way that statistics are. There are many ways to evaluate art, and guess what, one of them is statistically. Of course, as always, the stats are just one way of summarizing the artwork. Thus, it leaves stuff out. However, it is an accurate way of accounting for those parts of the artwork that have been described by it. Thus, statistics are informative, even in evaluating art. However, as always, stats only tell part of the story. I don\'t see what the problem is. Statistics just aren\'t a complete way of describing the facts. Other kinds of arguments will be needed. In fact, stats are poorly suited for telling some parts of the story. The catch on 4th and long that takes the ball 16 yards to the opponents 1 yard line with 6 seconds left (and sets up the winning score) is described statistically this way - 1 catch for 16 yards. That hardly says the same thing. Intangibles cannot be described statistically (except for height, weight, and 40 times, etc.). These are things that matter, but, as Billy points out, ONLY if they are properly described. One cannot simply say \"x has great intangibles\" - what the hell does that mean???
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks