On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:25:47 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, let's call it 15,000 orâallowing for deaths that the press didn't > > reportâ20,000 or 25,000, maybe 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a > > pre-emptive war waged (according to the latest rationale) on their > behalf. > > That's a number more solidly rooted in reality than the Hopkins figureâ > > and, given that fact, no less shocking." > > > I'm baffled by this bit. How is that a number "more solidly rooted in > >reality than the Hopkins figure"? He has simply said "oh, it's > >probably a bit more than the IBC number so I'll just double that", > >there is no basis for it whatsoever. It doesn't even fall outside of > >the Hopkins CI. > > Well, lets look at another number: the number of people killed in car > accidents in the US. If one simply looks at the count in official reports, > one can get very close to the true number. If one were to use methodogy > similar to that used in the Lancet report, one could get a number that was > far off. But IBC is not an official report, is it? I don't doubt looking at official reports is a good way to find out US car crash fatalities. That is not an option in Iraq however. If I counted all the car crash fatalities I could find in the US national press and then doubled the number I think it would be hard for me to claim that figure was solidly rooted in reality. If Kaplan believes the Lancet study is fatally flawed I'm puzzled why he would exchange one form of handwavign for another. >Experimental science is rooted in methodology and an understanding of the >inherent errors in methodology. Simple techniques, properly used, are far >more trustworthy than sophisticated techniques, poorly used. But the simple techniques can't be used can they? Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
