| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Agriculture Forum » The Oil We Eat
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
|
| Author |
Message |
| tg |
 Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
AE <hidden@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<c356c1$eo0$04$1@news.t-online.com>...
Quote: tg wrote:
...
When you talk about correlations as if they imply or demonstrate
causality in isolation, I suspect that you are just beginning your
understanding of science and statistics. In addition, you fail to
allow for resolution (in the sense of measurement) when you use broad
national statistics where there is great diversity of circumstance
within nations. These are fundamental problems with your analysis.
Programs for rural improvement, whether they involve literacy or not,
will eventually cause a net reduction in population growth _among the
participants_. There is nothing in this that refutes my position or
supports yours. Subsistence farmers in Africa have indirect effects on
global environmental conditions; as long as the population continues
to grow (if more slowly), this effect is not ameliorated to any great
degree.
...
If you are right the correlation test fails - right that's the purpose
of the test, isn't it?
"When you talk about correlations as if they imply or demonstrate
causality in isolation, I suspect that you are just beginning your
understanding of science and statistics."
I make an effort to understand what you write, despite the
non-standard construction. Please return the favor.
-tg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| AE |
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
tg schrieb:
Quote: AE <hidden@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<c356c1$eo0$04$1@news.t-online.com>...
tg wrote:
...
When you talk about correlations as if they imply or demonstrate
causality in isolation, I suspect that you are just beginning your
understanding of science and statistics. In addition, you fail to
allow for resolution (in the sense of measurement) when you use broad
national statistics where there is great diversity of circumstance
within nations. These are fundamental problems with your analysis.
Programs for rural improvement, whether they involve literacy or not,
will eventually cause a net reduction in population growth _among the
participants_. There is nothing in this that refutes my position or
supports yours. Subsistence farmers in Africa have indirect effects on
global environmental conditions; as long as the population continues
to grow (if more slowly), this effect is not ameliorated to any great
degree.
...
If you are right the correlation test fails - right that's the purpose
of the test, isn't it?
"When you talk about correlations as if they imply or demonstrate
causality in isolation, I suspect that you are just beginning your
understanding of science and statistics."
I make an effort to understand what you write, despite the
non-standard construction. Please return the favor.
-tg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| AE |
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
tg wrote:
Quote: AE wrote:
...
If you are right the correlation test fails - right that's the purpose
of the test, isn't it?
...
I make an effort to understand what you write, despite the
non-standard construction. Please return the favor.
You've mentioned two different things:
On the one hand effects that don't have anything to do with literacy. If
they are dominating population development a statistical test will show
there is no significan correlation between literacy and population
development.
On the other hand you are describing development projects that influence
as well literacy as population development. If they would exist
everywhere they'd cause a false significance. Indeed you'll find that
these projects are too few, too small and not effective enough to cause
this false significance.
Of course I'm aware literacy of women causes many different effects that
cause a reduction of population growth: Better position of women in
society, birth control, better effect of other development projects and
so on.
But right that is my point: Fighting illiteracy in general and
illiteracy of women in oarticular might be the best way to influence
population development. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| AE |
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| sorry. hit the wrong button. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:58 am
|
|