Studies aren't used to generate statistics, statistics are compiled & anaylzed by magic fairies
A genius named vonlisbon insists with absolute certainty that statistics don't come from studies.
Basically, he made a post quoting a statistic about medication errors in hospitals that resulted in death. He said that this source was a medical journal article that his pharmacology professor gave him. In spite of this, he insists that the statistic was compiled from the entirety of all data in the entire country (wow, apparently there's some super national database on all medical records all neatly compiled and analyzed by researchers) and was already pre-analyzed by...uh...fairies? (He never specified.)
Yeah, surely a medical journal article about medical errors (which requires human analysis to determine an what qualifies as an error) isn't a study!
Shortly into a thread I made with him, he proclaimed "I am so totally right and I can't dumb it down for you, so I'll ignore all further replies" (paraphrasing).
Later on, I linked to the STUDY that he claimed wasn't a study, along with a comment pointing out that the statistic from the study was actually much more broad than he insisted it was (it included all kinds of medical errors, not just medication errors), and even made a new post with a tutorial on studies and statistics--to which he gave this reply.
There's a good chance that he has read my replies at least partially, but cut himself off because he realized how incredibly wrong he was. I even made a $100 bet with him that he won't take (or acknowledge). He apparently is a slow reader and therefore can't read he few comments I posted to him.
I understand how people can be stupid, but it does manage to befuddle me when someone takes an academic subject, and then proudly proclaims to be right about something very basic that is just so dead wrong. He doesn't even have the slightest grasp of research methodology and how statistics are generated, yet he claism this.
Basically, he made a post quoting a statistic about medication errors in hospitals that resulted in death. He said that this source was a medical journal article that his pharmacology professor gave him. In spite of this, he insists that the statistic was compiled from the entirety of all data in the entire country (wow, apparently there's some super national database on all medical records all neatly compiled and analyzed by researchers) and was already pre-analyzed by...uh...fairies? (He never specified.)
Yeah, surely a medical journal article about medical errors (which requires human analysis to determine an what qualifies as an error) isn't a study!
Shortly into a thread I made with him, he proclaimed "I am so totally right and I can't dumb it down for you, so I'll ignore all further replies" (paraphrasing).
Later on, I linked to the STUDY that he claimed wasn't a study, along with a comment pointing out that the statistic from the study was actually much more broad than he insisted it was (it included all kinds of medical errors, not just medication errors), and even made a new post with a tutorial on studies and statistics--to which he gave this reply.
There's a good chance that he has read my replies at least partially, but cut himself off because he realized how incredibly wrong he was. I even made a $100 bet with him that he won't take (or acknowledge). He apparently is a slow reader and therefore can't read he few comments I posted to him.
I understand how people can be stupid, but it does manage to befuddle me when someone takes an academic subject, and then proudly proclaims to be right about something very basic that is just so dead wrong. He doesn't even have the slightest grasp of research methodology and how statistics are generated, yet he claism this.