3000 dead Puerto Rico, 7 dead in NC-Trump's racist response?
- Thread starter Micawber
- Start date
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello and greetings Into the Night,
It is a scientifically created best estimate. That does not make it fake. It is the best estimate possible with the given information. The available data yields a range. The figure is the most likely figure within that range. The actual figure might be lower, but it could very well be higher. This is the best figure we can interpret as the number of deaths in Puerto Rico caused by that hurricane.
To deny this figure is to deny science.
It is a scientifically created best estimate. That does not make it fake. It is the best estimate possible with the given information. The available data yields a range. The figure is the most likely figure within that range. The actual figure might be lower, but it could very well be higher. This is the best figure we can interpret as the number of deaths in Puerto Rico caused by that hurricane.
To deny this figure is to deny science.
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' estimate.
Yes it does.
No information was used. It was created out of thick air.
No, it yields a randU (the 'predictable' type of random number used to embellish or politicize an argument).
You mean you don't know.
So you don't know.
How do you figure? No one has actually recorded the deaths in Puerto Rico that were caused by that hurricane.
WRONG. Science isn't data. It isn't estimates. It isn't computer modeling. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
This has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with poor mathematics and the use of randU values. An argument from randU is a fallacy.
countryboy
Verified User
Gosh, only 7 dead in NC. That has to be particularly galling for libs. I'm sure you were hoping the death toll would be MUCH higher.
Yes, yes, yes and yes. He's a loser moron fraud asshole. Whatever it takes. Oppose him at every turn in every way. Destroy him, his mother, her cart and the horse that pulled them all.
If you aren't biased against him, you are a sociopath.
it would not mean a thing to you. they, however, kept track of the dead count and subtracted how many would normally die. Even a righty can understand deaths above the normal rate would would be correctly counted as hurricane reltaed.
countryboy
Verified User
Hey, great news Libs! The death toll has climbed to 32. Get your happy dance on!
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/17/6486...of-north-carolina-as-rivers-continue-to-flood
Loving91390
Verified User
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
Is the scarlet in your profile pic yours? Beautiful guy.
Into the Night
Verified User
'They' made it up. They never even went to Puerto Rico to find out how many actually died. It is a manufactured number.
Into the Night
Verified User
No. I used to have one like him, but I don't anymore.
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
Let me guess -- he ate your furniture, made your ears bleed, and left his underwear lying all over the house? lol They're amazing critters, but not for everyone.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
The 3000 dead number in Puerto Rico has been thoroughly debunked by me.
Case closed
If you are still pushing that number you are either stupid or a partisan hack. I recognize that they are not mutually exclusive
Case closed
If you are still pushing that number you are either stupid or a partisan hack. I recognize that they are not mutually exclusive
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Into the Night,
And that is where your argument falls apart.
Information was definitely used.
They took the death rate prior to the storm and compared it to the death rate after the storm.
Either the storm is responsible for the additional deaths or something else is.
Social science, (in the broadest sense of the term science,) looks at the knowledge of social phenomena.
This estimate was performed as a part of social science.
Every individual is free to reject this estimate if they please, but it is accepted by our government and most of society as the most accurate estimate possible, and in all reality, probably very accurate.
Unless an explanation which accounts for all the additional deaths is presented, I choose, just like most of the nation, to accept this estimate.
And that is where your argument falls apart.
Information was definitely used.
They took the death rate prior to the storm and compared it to the death rate after the storm.
Either the storm is responsible for the additional deaths or something else is.
Social science, (in the broadest sense of the term science,) looks at the knowledge of social phenomena.
This estimate was performed as a part of social science.
Every individual is free to reject this estimate if they please, but it is accepted by our government and most of society as the most accurate estimate possible, and in all reality, probably very accurate.
Unless an explanation which accounts for all the additional deaths is presented, I choose, just like most of the nation, to accept this estimate.
Into the Night
Verified User
No, I gave him other wood to munch.He didn't eat my furniture. He actually was fairly quiet (for a parrot). He did like to beat the hell out of the cat.
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
Poor kitty. lol We have two macaw; they used to terrorize my daughters' poor kitty too. He quickly learned to never come if he heard "Here kitty kitty kitty!"
Into the Night
Verified User
It doesn't fall apart.
None.
That tells you nothing. Deaths rate also did not increase by 3000.
No, it's a completely fabricated number.
It is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
There is no such thing as 'social science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not data, not fabrications.
Argument from randU. You don't know what 'most of society' accepts. The media is not 'most of society'. The government is a lot of people. Some accept it, others do not. To say they all accept something is a compositional error.
This is a fallacy known as a base rate fallacy.
Argument from randU fallacy.
I know you accept this 'estimate'. That is obvious.
Here's the problem: Comparing two death rates (which have no been published yet!) before and after an event does NOT mean any difference was caused by that event. To say that it was is leaping to a conclusion, which is a fallacy. The 3000 figure is an estimate generated by a study at George Washington University by researches that never went to Puerto Rico. Hurricanes are chaotic events. At first, the initial toll was 64. Funeral homes in the area put the number closer to some 500, and even that is an estimate of the cause of death. This 3000 figure is an absolute fabrication. It is the same number used in other reports of hurricane deaths elsewhere, including Katrina.