Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (35949)	4/26/1999 2:22:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>>>>>Why don't you do that Christine. It would be very interesting to make the comparison. America before 1960, and America after 1960! Start around 1900 Christine and go up to 1960. Give us the stats on just how many school aged children murdered or injured other school children Let's keep it that narrow, since school aged children is the issue. Also if it's not too much trouble check out the stats on how many children under the age of 18 murdered anyone at all. Of course keeping in mind that only those murdered with guns and/or rifles should be considered, legal or otherwise.<<<<< It may be, pursuant to the doctrine of unintended consequences, that banning guns has paradoxically caused an increase in crime. Or, as you say, there may be no correlation. Or, maybe if someone did the research, a greater percentage of the population of school age children was murdered prior to the 1960's, and we just have it backwards.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (35949)	4/26/1999 2:35:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Possibly the intellectual snob in me is overdoing it. I shall blame Chuzzlewit. In which case I will take up the cause! There is an incredible amount of sloppy thinking today. Phenomena that are correlated does not imply cause and effect. Nor does it necessarily imply any connection at all. Statisticians look at this latter point all of the time. It is called "runs analysis", and yet you will hear sports commentators talking about "hot and cold streaks", when in fact those streaks can be shown to be consistent with uncorrelated, random events. In the stock market these "streaks" form the basis for TA (which is nonsense when examined statistically). Epidemiologists see this kind of thing all the time as clustering of diseases. It makes for wonderful law suits but really lousy science. And that brings me back to a point I made some time ago: anecdotal evidence may be interesting in terms of pointing someone in the direction of possible investigation, but it is terrible evidence. How often have we heard something like: My friend suffered from terrible <fill in the disease> but started taking <fill in the herb> and is now better. This is the stuff of quackery! TTFN, CTC