Huge Global Data Set: How's The World Getting On?

[Al Agnew]

The ability of humans to pick and choose data to fit their hypotheses is only exceeded by the ability of humans to ignore or attack data that doesn't fit their agenda. And the only way to get around both those things is to have as much data from as many sources as possible, which is what this does well.

[bfishn]

HAL: It can only be attributable to human error.

Nice one. But any data taken out of context, even that as seemingly self-evident as your quote, leads to mistaken interpretations.

Dave: How would you account for this discrepancy between you and the twin 9000?

HAL: Well, I don’t think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error.

Frank: Listen HAL. There has never been any instance at all of a computer error occurring in the 9000 series, has there?

HAL: None whatsoever, Frank. The 9000 series has a perfect operational record.

Frank: Well of course I know all the wonderful achievements of the 9000 series, but, uh, are you certain there has never been any case of even the most insignificant computer error?

HAL: None whatsoever, Frank. Quite honestly, I wouldn’t worry myself about that.

...and as we all know, HAL was telling a fish story that he'd later pay the price for. :-)

[Mitch f]

That quote was taken off a website

I guess for me it all boils down to that there is nothing wrong with questioning what we read. We shouldn't assume anything. Would you be willing to risk your life on something? Or make a major policy change? Or make a key decision without doing your homework? I wouldn't unless I do myself or make darn sure I trust the source. Nothing wrong with questioning.

[Mitch f]

What Ness said. It's usually the interpretations that bog down.

For instance, if you plot infant mortality against human population growth in this data set, you'll get a positive relationship (more dead babies = greater population growth). There are a lot of ways to interpret that wrong.

Here's some data that we can all appreciate:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=qHQWlFtSptU&feature=em-share_video_user<http://c

p.mcafee.com/d/avndxMs81MOrhoKehsh7fL6XCQQmbLcee3Dzqqb5TC71OtPqqb5TC771NEVdF

[ness]

That was hilarious!

[Tim Smith]

Here's some data that we can all appreciate:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=qHQWlFtSptU&feature=em-share_video_user<http://c

p.mcafee.com/d/avndxMs81MOrhoKehsh7fL6XCQQmbLcee3Dzqqb5TC71OtPqqb5TC771NEVdF

I will never admit that I watched that. But I have not given up on unicorns.

[bfishn]

That explains a lot. I've long pursued the 10s, and have even caught a few. Now I see they were 10s alright, just on the wrong axis... :-(

[Mitch f]

That explains a lot. I've long pursued the 10s, and have even caught a few. Now I see they were 10s alright, just on the wrong axis... :-(

Did you get your car keyed? Or bunny boiled? Or ended up in jail?

[bfishn]

Not me, but she. Except for the bunny.