Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:57:08 -0600
From:         William Jordan <JORDAN@LATECH.BITNET>
Subject:      A Users View of Statistics

Much has been made lately of the use and abuse of statistics.  I would like
to make a few comments from the perspective of someone who routinely uses
statistics to evaluate experimental results.

My first point is that statistics cannot be used solely by themselves
as a neutral technique.  Human insight must be used to decide what to
use the statistics on, and human insight is needed to interpret the
results.  For example, when my graduate student shows me the data on
a test he has done five times, I need to decide which pieces of data to
average and then report.  Sometimes the worst thing I can do is to take
the average of the five test results.  Some of the test results are
clearly unbelievable, and I throw them out before statistically analyzing
the rest of the data.  Sometimes this may mean as much as 30-40% of the
data is thrown away.  In most situations, this results in data that much
more actually reflects what is occurring.  Someone may ask if there isn't
the chance that the data I throw away may be the only "good data" I have.
Certainly mistakes can be made, and sometimes the data that appears to be
bad is the data that is in fact good.

The point I want to make is that I need to use human insight into the
selection of data to use, and in the interpretation of the data I have
retained.  So the use of statistics (even in things such as engineering)
is not so clearly obvious as some have implied.  Human intervention must
be done to make the data selection and interpretation meaningful.

I now would like to move into another area--the use of data in the social
sciences. Some people, like Pat Robertson, have been severely criticized
for their use of statistics.  If the use of statistics has to be
controlled carefully in the hard sciences, even more so it has to be
carefully monitored in the social sciences.  One of the problems with
the social sciences is the difficulty of proving anything about anything.
Pat Robertson cannot prove that stopping school prayer destroyed America's
schools.  On the other hand, his critics cannot prove that the removal
of school prayer did not hurt the country's schools.  All that can be done
is to look at two separate facts--the banning of school prayer in 1962, and
the decline in our public school system--and decide for ourselves whether
or not there is a cause and effect relationship.

I personally believe that the banning of school prayer has hurt our schools.
Others on CHRISTIA may believe otherwise.  Neither group can prove its
point statistically.  All either group can do is present data that tends
to support or not support their position.  However, we need to recognize
that neither of us is really proving our position.

To summarize, I believe that the use of statistics (even in the hard
sciences) must be tempered with human insight to make sure that a
reasonable interpretation of the facts has occurred.  When dealing with
the social sciences, the statistics are even more likely to be of
questionable value.  What I believe can be done, is for us to evaluate
whether there is a reasonable correlation between two events in history.
We can differ as to what we think of the reasonableness of our conclusions,
but we should stop kidding ourselves that we have proved anything.

I personally believe most of what Pat Robertson is saying about our
culture.  I cannot prove his conclusions are right with statistics, but
I would also conclude that his critics cannot prove him false.

In Christ, Bill

William M. Jordan            Voice       (318) 257-4304
Mechanical & Industrial      FAX         (318) 257-2562
     Engineering Dept.       Bitnet      jordan@latech.bitnet
Louisiana Tech University    Internet    jordan@engr.latech.edu
Ruston, LA 71272
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU