a0d0c741
XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android
From: ithinkiam@gmail.com
"Paul M. Cook" Wrote in message:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 18:16:44 +0000, Chris wrote:
>
>> Your argument is full of assumptions placed upon data. There's
>> nothing wrong with the data, just your interpretation of
>> it.
>
> You're stating what's possible; not what's believable.
>
> I agree that there is nothing wrong with the accident rate data
> as reported for decades for every state in the nation.
>
> I also agree that other data would show an astoundingly meteoric
> rise in cellphone ownership during a particular period in time
> (most likely having leveled off by now in the USA).
You keep banging on about the data. The data are fine, there is no
issue with them. Can you get past that FFS?
> What nobody can find is any effect on the overall accident rate
> from that meteoric rise in cellphone ownership.
>
> Because it's not there.
The data cannot prove the effect one way or another even if there
were a correlation. Just for clarity, I'm not saying there is or
should be a correlation in the data.
> You say the tremendous rise and then leveling off of accidents
> supposedly due to cellphone-distracted drivers *can" be *hidden*
> in the data - but I counter that's the case only if a combination
> of other factors *exactly* cancels out both the timing and effect
> of the cellphone use.
You're arguing with yourself now. I've not said any such thing.
> That's possible - but not believable.
> Yours would be an extraordinary claim.
It's extraordinary that you think I said that. I didn't.
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.
No. Extraordinary claims need very reliable and robust data.
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
