I think it's pretty stupid to dismiss a study like this as false off-hand, but as stupid to defend the results of the study the way you do Nadagast.
It's only one study, One. While the value of the results of a study like this is relatively high compared to studies using other methods it's still just one single result. The only conclusion we can draw from this study at the moment is that it is likely that the number of deaths has been underestimated and that the issue merits further examination.
<!--quoteo(post=1571524:date=Oct 27 2006, 05:48 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Oct 27 2006, 05:48 PM) [snapback]1571524[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it's pretty stupid to dismiss a study like this as false off-hand, but as stupid to defend the results of the study the way you do Nadagast.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, it's the only estimate of deaths that we have, and if there is nothing wrong with its method, (I have seen nothing to indicate this) then we can be 95% sure that the actual death toll is between ~400k and ~800k. I don't see what's wrong with defending a peer reviewed study from ridiculous arguments from incredulity. If there was another study on the topic of total number of deaths in Iraq, I'd be the first one to weigh the two studies, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing else. IBC and the Iraqi government use methods that have been proven to underestimate deaths by large amounts.
If I've come across as dogmatic, I apologize, but I have seen no reason for anyone to doubt that there is a 95% chance that the deaths are between ~400k and ~800k. I assure you I am not overly attached to these numbers, but if it's the only thing we have, and there's nothing wrong with their method... I see no reason to distrust the numbers. I have to admit I do get angry whenever I read Bush's comments on the study, it's just pathetic that he is allowed to say that it's discredited then pay millions of dollars to train people to do the same thing.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's only one study, One. While the value of the results of a study like this is relatively high compared to studies using other methods it's still just one single result. The only conclusion we can draw from this study at the moment is that it is likely that the number of deaths has been underestimated and that the issue merits further examination.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only conclusion we can draw from this study is that there's a 95% chance that the death toll is between ~400k and ~800k. There's no reason to doubt these numbers accuracy unless we have some evidence that they faked their results or that there was a flaw in their method. That's it. The fact that it's just one study doesn't matter, that's the beauty of statistics. (more studies could help, but, if there is nothing wrong with the method, there is a 95% chance that any later study will get a number between ~400k and ~800k) I will admit that there is 5% chance that somehow they got a biased sample and the actual number of deaths is lower than ~400k or higher than ~800k, but I think that, unless we see something wrong with their method, there's no reason to distrust these numbers.
I don't want to give off the wrong impression, I'm not trying to dogmatically defend the numbers. It would be GREAT if there was a flaw in the method, that would mean that far fewer people died than this study tells us. I HOPE there is a flaw in the study, but I don't see one.
Anyway, I feel like I'm not convincingly/completely responding to your allegations of my overly defending this study. Ask a question if I'm not clear... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Edit: I guess it really just comes down to the fact that if there is nothing wrong with the method then there is no reason to <b>not</b> defend the numbers.
I'm going to ask all parties involved in this discussion to take a step back, count to about 100, then to please <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com:90/forums/index.php?s=7211252072384958464&showtopic=43638" target="_blank">read rule number one</a> of the discussion forum.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Might I suggest that we move this discussion to another thread?
I don't think the specific number of people killed in iraq has much bearing on whether he should be impeached. It's enough of a tragedy at 10,000 which is the number Bush has given in the past. Remember that that's still an order of magnitude more than have been killed in terrorist attacks on the US in the last 20 years, which begs the question of who is doing more damage.
Comments
It's only one study, One. While the value of the results of a study like this is relatively high compared to studies using other methods it's still just one single result. The only conclusion we can draw from this study at the moment is that it is likely that the number of deaths has been underestimated and that the issue merits further examination.
Well, it's the only estimate of deaths that we have, and if there is nothing wrong with its method, (I have seen nothing to indicate this) then we can be 95% sure that the actual death toll is between ~400k and ~800k. I don't see what's wrong with defending a peer reviewed study from ridiculous arguments from incredulity. If there was another study on the topic of total number of deaths in Iraq, I'd be the first one to weigh the two studies, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing else. IBC and the Iraqi government use methods that have been proven to underestimate deaths by large amounts.
If I've come across as dogmatic, I apologize, but I have seen no reason for anyone to doubt that there is a 95% chance that the deaths are between ~400k and ~800k. I assure you I am not overly attached to these numbers, but if it's the only thing we have, and there's nothing wrong with their method... I see no reason to distrust the numbers. I have to admit I do get angry whenever I read Bush's comments on the study, it's just pathetic that he is allowed to say that it's discredited then pay millions of dollars to train people to do the same thing.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's only one study, One. While the value of the results of a study like this is relatively high compared to studies using other methods it's still just one single result. The only conclusion we can draw from this study at the moment is that it is likely that the number of deaths has been underestimated and that the issue merits further examination.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only conclusion we can draw from this study is that there's a 95% chance that the death toll is between ~400k and ~800k. There's no reason to doubt these numbers accuracy unless we have some evidence that they faked their results or that there was a flaw in their method. That's it.
The fact that it's just one study doesn't matter, that's the beauty of statistics. (more studies could help, but, if there is nothing wrong with the method, there is a 95% chance that any later study will get a number between ~400k and ~800k) I will admit that there is 5% chance that somehow they got a biased sample and the actual number of deaths is lower than ~400k or higher than ~800k, but I think that, unless we see something wrong with their method, there's no reason to distrust these numbers.
I don't want to give off the wrong impression, I'm not trying to dogmatically defend the numbers. It would be GREAT if there was a flaw in the method, that would mean that far fewer people died than this study tells us. I HOPE there is a flaw in the study, but I don't see one.
Anyway, I feel like I'm not convincingly/completely responding to your allegations of my overly defending this study. Ask a question if I'm not clear... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Edit: I guess it really just comes down to the fact that if there is nothing wrong with the method then there is no reason to <b>not</b> defend the numbers.
I don't think the specific number of people killed in iraq has much bearing on whether he should be impeached. It's enough of a tragedy at 10,000 which is the number Bush has given in the past. Remember that that's still an order of magnitude more than have been killed in terrorist attacks on the US in the last 20 years, which begs the question of who is doing more damage.