Taxpayer support

[RonJeremy]

No but it makes it less reliable and thus less credible.

Data isnt biased you just have to be able to interpret it correctly.

 

It also depends on the data you select to collect. NOthing is unbiased.

[999tigger]

It also depends on the data you select to collect. NOthing is unbiased.

 

Thats all part of assessing and interpreting the data. Data is just data.

[RonJeremy]

Thats all part of assessing and interpreting the data. Data is just data.

 

The data you collect is only as good as the data you are given. Or assess yourself for that matter.

[999tigger]

The data you collect is only as good as the data you are given. Or assess yourself for that matter.

 

Its a bit ironic when you are talking about data when you dont actually use any yourself, its annecdotal evidence which is poor.

 

All youve got is a few annecdotal experiences and the Daily Mail. You dont understand the benefit system, which makes it difficult to have an informed opinion.

 

Obviously its important that you assess the data you have and the things you draw from it. Well researched data is going to be much more reliable than you walking round Firth park or the Daily Mail.

[TJC1]

Its a bit ironic when you are talking about data when you dont actually use any yourself, its annecdotal evidence which is poor.

 

All youve got is a few annecdotal experiences and the Daily Mail. You dont understand the benefit system, which makes it difficult to have an informed opinion.

 

Obviously its important that you assess the data you have and the things you draw from it. Well researched data is going to be much more reliable than you walking round Firth park or the Daily Mail.

 

According to you nobody understands the benefits system as well as yourself. Maybe you should get a job! :hihi:

 

---------- Post added 25-10-2015 at 00:31 ----------

 

Your response is hilarious. Ive just explained to you what happens to the money and once again you are too lazy and unable to provide a constructive response.

If I allegedly have no clue then it should be easy to explain where ive gone wrong.

 

youve tried to explain and sound clever, but the explaination was inaccurate. Like I say, get yourself a job and a further 6 years of HE education like I have then I might take it seriously.

[unbeliever]

According to you nobody understands the benefits system as well as yourself. Maybe you should get a job! :hihi:

 

---------- Post added 25-10-2015 at 00:31 ----------

 

 

youve tried to explain and sound clever, but the explaination was inaccurate. Like I say, get yourself a job and a further 6 years of HE education like I have then I might take it seriously.

 

 

Since you're invoking education.

I have a PhD and I say tigger's right.

[RonJeremy]

Its a bit ironic when you are talking about data when you dont actually use any yourself, its annecdotal evidence which is poor.

 

All youve got is a few annecdotal experiences and the Daily Mail. You dont understand the benefit system, which makes it difficult to have an informed opinion.

 

Obviously its important that you assess the data you have and the things you draw from it. Well researched data is going to be much more reliable than you walking round Firth park or the Daily Mail.

 

Ha ha. Are your suppositions based on data or just random made up nonsense?

[Petminder]

Its a question of evidence to back up your assertion. If you dont have anything to back it up other than your own experience then its hard to persuade others.

 

I disagree, some people are happy to believe without evidence, and evidence will rarely convince someone that they didn't see or experience something. Then there are people that need to see or experience it for themselves and can't be convinced no matter how much evidence is presented.

[Cyclone]

What we can agree on (I hope) is that data in the form of personal experience is almost guaranteed to be biased. It's not geographically distributed, it's not socially distributed, it's not remotely cross sectional, it's not collected in a systematic way and it's only recorded through the biassing device of your perceptions and memories.

Oh, and you won't even explain how you actually know the work history of people that you see in the park... I can't tell the working status of someone simply by looking at them, can you.

[RonJeremy]

What we can agree on (I hope) is that data in the form of personal experience is almost guaranteed to be biased. It's not geographically distributed, it's not socially distributed, it's not remotely cross sectional, it's not collected in a systematic way and it's only recorded through the biassing device of your perceptions and memories.

Oh, and you won't even explain how you actually know the work history of people that you see in the park... I can't tell the working status of someone simply by looking at them, can you.

 

If this is directed at me?

I don't assess people by looking at them in the park nor have I claimed this. Someone else did. Just cause they tell a lie doesn't make it true. I happen to know the working status of some people. I know you don't like the truth but it is true. And no I can't prove it. But I know it's true and whether you like to remain blinkered or not is your decision. Again I know it's not scientific.

There are plenty of people on here who don't believe everything the government tells, perhaps you do because they can "prove it" with statistics. In not one of them. I have experience and know a great many people.