PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 16 Mar 2001 03:21:38 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (72 lines)
Here you see how tiny numerical differences are used to
distract non-math readers.

Any Mathematician would instantly reject as garbage both of
the following items recently presented to this list as they
pretend to be accurate when they are incoherent
mathematically!


>AS PRESENTED>>>>>>>>>>>Sciences linked the birth months of
more than a million people who died in
Denmark and Austria after the age of 50. It then looked for
a similar pattern
in Australia.
The study found that adults who were born in Austria between
October and
December lived about .6 years longer than those born in the
spring, April to
June.
In Denmark, those born in the fall lived about .3 years
longer than did
people born in the spring, the study found.


****There is a great flaw here if  the numbers were intended
to be  0.6 and 0.3  respectively!  As  no honest scientist
would use    blank dot six;   or blank dot 3 to represent
0.3 and 0.6!   so you may see how easily you may be taken in
by garbage science,  some reporter has repeated the data to
support her agenda!

AGAIN  ANOTHER GARBAGE QUOTE >>>>>>>>>Study results
AP/Guy Reynolds [26K]
The authors, Gabriele Doblhammer and James W. Vaupel of Max
Planck Institute
in Rostock, Germany, also checked the pattern of birth month
and lifespan in
Australia and found ``a mirror image reversal of that in the
Northern
Hemisphere.''
``The mean age of death of people born in Australia in the
second quarter of
the year is 78,'' the authors said. ``Those born in the
fourth quarter die at
a mean age of 77.65.''
The authors said the difference may be related to nutrition
during pregnancy.

*******Now  this is a tiny bit more honest!     But still
garbage!

We can see that  the difference between   78  and  77.65  is
very little  but again it is psuedo science as any Scientist
would have written  78.00  compared to 77.65  in order to
indicate a difference of  0.35!   The difference between  78
and 77.65 is  ZERO!    As in science we use the same degree
of difference.  Therefore  the numbers are rigged!   Most
probably to support the agenda of the reporter!    78   is
78.00  if it is to be compared to 77.65!

So  you see how easy the political lie is presented to us.
And if we are not numerically aware we may be misled by this
type of manipulation!

Finally the writer who blessed us with this astonishing
information failed to mention that these differences are
most probably too small to be of any use!

Live and Learn!

Regards,   Lorenzo

ATOM RSS1 RSS2