At around 28/4/06 11:23 am, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Leigh Meyers wrote:
>
>> Research is more than reciting numbers... It's also verifying the
>> validity and veracity OF the numbers, especially when they come from
>> sources (governments, and the apparatchik) that have a vested interest
>> in 'blue skies and happy times' under their regime... and typically,
>> under close examination, or in retrospect, those numbers are fudged.
>
> You really have no idea what you're talking about, and worse, you
> don't care. I spend a good bit of my working life studying these
> figures - how they're defined and collected, their strengths and
> weakness, etc. The people who put them together are honest,
> competent, and serious people who are very open about what they do.
> You're just belching out a lot of know-nothingism.
>
I am afraid I do not understand your anger. That people are honest,
competent and serious (or that their processes are open) does not
exclude the influence of ideology or theory. Are you saying that Leigh
is wrong because:
(a) the numbers do not come from politically influenced government sources?
[OR]
(b) that they are thoroughly vetted in some way by those analysing/using
them? If so, how?
--ravi
--
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
