nartreb wrote:Paulo, I don't know you, but I'll tell you what your problem is. You let the opinion of one person "make all my work seem useless."
He's also quite wrong in his interpretation of statistics, since he's comparing chronic risks to acute ones. Look at smoking, for example: if you smoke for 40 years your expectation is to die about 10 years early; four days smoking (no, biology doesn't quite work like this, I'm just comparing numbers) will cost you one day of life. If you spend four days climbing Mont Blanc at age 20, an 0.15% death rate means you should expect that it will cost you 27 days of life. So climbing Mont Blanc is nearly 30 times deadlier than smoking.
Honestly, I don't think AS actually read your article. I think he's anxious to denounce sensationalism, but describing and avoiding sensationalism is exactly what much of your article is about.
I do have to question one line from your fifth paragraph: "The increase in the number of deaths is exponential." Nothing in the article supports that assertion, and I frankly doubt it's true. ("Exponential" is a technical term in mathematics.)
mrchad9 wrote:nartreb said it very well. as didn't even seem to understand statistics himself, and by the way you responded perfectly well to his post. Now the best thing to do is completely forget about him. He is only one person out of many, and you already know that the vast majority don't agree with him. Continue on just as before!
And DO NOT thank me... writing this didn't take much effort!
Paulo, I don't know you, but I'll tell you what your problem is. You let the opinion of one person "make all my work seem useless."
MoapaPk wrote:you can ask the elves to remove overly contentious comments. I've seen that done before.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests