I asked you a magic number you didn't give one.. this means a million iraqis can die and you will still not support withdrawal right?
No, that isn't what it means. IROC it is correct that you are attempting to attribute positions to me that I have not taken.
I surely agree with you on that. They are questioning the methodology, when many other experts approved the methodology. The way they questioned is NOT legit. Sampling size too small? What's the definition in that proven methodology and pre-defined procedure? I don't see them question a proven methodology or its procedure. Again, they threw out that bias thing as you did. The only moving parts in that matter are the methodology and procedure, which doesn't include bias or intend or record of any person. You cut my sentense short regarding that bias has 'no weight on the statistical outcome.', my premise was "Until it's proven that he applied his bias in the way he conducts the study by violating the procedure". In so many discussion here, people were arguing about something solely subjective, as motives/intents/bias. That's NOT verifible, therefore it can't prove anything. Motive and intend are the most discussed thing and played card in Culture Revolution. It can only serve as means to spin. All the factors you mentioned "(type of questions, phrasing, criteria to pick subjects, sample size etc)" are legit, BUT all of them are addressed in either methodology or procedure. That's why statistics is science, not some sort of lip services or word games. Once the rules are set for mathmatics, Hitler and Lincoln will get the same result in "1+1=2". No bias is going to change that. Unless one can prove either that methodology is wrong, or the procedure he followed to apply that methodology is wrong, one can NOT claim his statistic numbers are wrong, even if you play the bias card.
Surveys use math but it is not math. 1+1=2. That is math. For example, you know that you can formulate a question in a poll differently and depending on how you do so you will get different answers. You can guide the survey on the ground to particular audiences (for instance one concern raised about the Lancet study is that they surveyed Iraqis coming to them rather than randomly chosing themselves. This can introduce bias where those who have lost family are slanting the results. That is not hard science. You are overstating the certainty with which we can depend on the results of this survey.
The only reason? If I didn't think there was an advantage to having the troops there then of course I would be in favor of a withdrawal.
lets say 1 million Iraqis have died but you still think that there is an advantage to having the troops there then you won't favor withdrawal correct?
Neither of us have the full story here. There is no proof to say that Iraqis came to them all losting families, and there is no proof to say that Iraqis came to them have higher ratio of losting families. One can exactly spin in the opposite direction, to claim that those came to them were all pro-US, therefore, the actual number would be even much higher. You see here, the suggestions you threw out, such as their bias affected the way they conducted the survey, and the participants came to them had a pre-set one-sided bias, that's not science or proven reality, but rather your own bias. Don't you agree? Without confirmation from other sources, I won't take that as the final truth; however, without solid proof to point out their wrong-doings in their study, I wouldn't even start the thought that their bias affected the outcome.
Why would your presumption be that there was no bias in the study? At best your presumption should be to learn more about the study, not to take it on face as true. That the lead researcher HAS a bias, and has admitted as much, at least provides reason to question whether or not that bias extended into the research. It provides a reasonable rationale why we should not take the conclusion of the study as true on its face.
I clearly said everyone is biased. What in question is the method applied and the procedure of how they applied that method. If you want to dismiss his result, prove either 2 above is wrong. Otherwise, playing the bias card isn't helping any cause. Therefore, I am not interested in his bias. With or without a bias, one can and should always question whether the research is based on proven premise and proven procedure. I mean that for any research. I don't understand why you kept bringing up his bias. If we are talking about his personal opinions, of course his bias decides his opinion. However, we are talking about his research, why can't we just focus on the research itself? Methodology and Procedure, what else is there to discuss? It's like someone said he solved a math problem, he showed you his procedure step by step how he solved that. You keep telling everyone that he's a bad guy. What does that have to do anything with the legitimacy of his problem solving fact?
You working on incomplete information. Do you know exactly what questions were asked? Do you know exactly how the interviewees were picked? No, I don't think so. You fail to recognize that personal bias can affect the outcome of a survey. You seem to think surveys are math problems like 1+1=2 but they are not. Further you already acknowledge that you can't answer the substantive questions posed about the survey so I'm not sure why you are adamantly supporting the conclusion.
One more time, I am NOT adamantly supporting the conclusion. As I have mentioned so many times, that I need further confirmation from different sources to CONFIRM the conclusion. However, I am adamantly OPPOSING your dismissing of the conclusion without ANY PROOF, except for YOUR BELIEF that his bias LED to the wrong study and wrong conclusion. You have reason to question, but you do not have anything solid to lable it as false or misled by bias, at least you haven't showed any. Since you haven't showed and admitted that you can't show at this point, that you have solid evidence to, either dispute his methodology, or dispute the procedure he used to apply that methodology, so I am not sure why you are abamantly DISMISSING the conclusion.
You are repeating something I never said and strongly opposed, again and again. I said clearly that everyone is biased, including you and myself. Does that mean every single word comes out of every single person's mouth should be dismissed because we are all biased? I guess D & D should be closed within one day then, because every single thread will be followed by one single reply, "You are biased." There are rules, theories, methodologies, and procedures, serving as research guidance. Why? Because we are BIASED, as human beings. If one applies the same proven and agreed upon rules to conduct research, the impact of his/her bias should be limited or even elimited. Therefore, using the same standard, Hitler's "1+1=2" conclusion is equally legit as Lincoln's. YOu are right that survey is not simple maths. Therefore, there are methodology and procedure available to force it as close to objective as possible. Instead of jumping to conclusion that he's biased, therefore his conclusion is wrong, why don't you gather more information to point out where exactly is wrong in his methodology or procedure or both? So far, I haven't seen anyone did that, except for claiming he's biased.
When the lead researcher himself says he has a political agenda I think that is far from 'jumping to conclusion that he's biased.' That is where you and I diverge. You continue to insist this is a 1+1=2 equation when it isn't. Surveys are not hard science where something is true or not. Further, I'm not sure where you get the idea that bias is the only argument against the figure. I have already pointed out several substantive problems with the study, which you said IIRC that you didn't have the answers to, that cast doubt on the conclusion. Bias is certainly one of the arguments against the conclusion, but it is not the only one.
All I know is that the number of casualties is high. I don't know if it's 650,000 but I don't even think that matters. It is too high. We'll never find any WMD and Iraq will never be at peace.
