By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik said:
tarheel91 said:

The article you linked me to is a follow up article based on the article in the OP.  I

The word document you linked me to is simply the paper about the original research by the government.  It's well documented in every regard.  The numbers and methods are entirely transparent.  That's how statistics is supposed to be done.  Notice that you see none of that in the Chronicle's article, just some graphs they've borrowed without context.  That is not acceptable statistics, and whether they're right or not this "study" doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

If the data is available to be reviewed, then why would the article need to bring it up?  The article was a wake up call article, and not a research piece.  The unpublished part comes in that is now what the government reports.  To get too hung up on the minutia here is to miss the point.

So they're just going to claim there's unpublished data in government reports.  Whoop-de-fing-do.  Last time I checked, that sort of thing is called a rumor and not proof of anything.  You generally need evidence of some sort.  You know who also claim a lot of stuff without having any proof to accomplish some agenda?  Conspiracy theorists.

As I said, if they really did find unpublished data, it's their responsibility to publish it, not just claim they found it.