[QUOTE=cheesehead;96497]But the point is that he lends his presidential authority to the claim that Intelligent Design deserves equal consideration in science classes. That is an improper federal attempt to influence decisions by state and local school boards!

[snip]

So you join me in condemning Bush's improper elevation of ID to the status of science, right?[/QUOTE]No, of course not.

One can read the headlines:
Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught
Bush: Schools should teach intelligent design
Bush endorses 'intelligent design'
Bush Endorses "Intelligent Design", Creationism

or one can read what Bush said, almost in passing. MSNBC article [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8792302/[/url]

“You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Look, he was talking with 5 Texan reporters, and the White House backpedaled the next day. End of story.

Bush is not championing ID. If he was, I'd oppose him. But he's not and he's taking unnecessary heat from various paranoids.

Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong at all with universities teaching Comparative Religion and there is nothing wrong with HS kids learning that some people believe in ID.

Now I've got to disappear again. I'm up to my gills.

Prime95, I look forward to your scientific critique of the Lancet survey.

[quote=Prime95;96782]The whole process could have been corrupted when they recruited their 8 local surveyors.[/quote]Do you have any evidence that the recruiting process was actually biased, that it differed in any way from the process used in previous war zones that was good enough then for the UN to adopt their figures as official estimates?

[quote]Asking for workers to do a "study on excess deaths"[/quote]Is that actually what they asked when recruiting?

[quote]I've not seen the surveyor's questions or how they conducted their interviews.[/quote]Oh, so you _don't_ have any evidence that the recruiting was biased. You're just throwing up a smoke screen.

[quote]I think one surveyed local morgues and hospitals. I suppose the Iraqi government counts death certificates. Both are valid methodologies.[/quote]... but only for compiling lower bounds [I]guaranteed to omit significant numbers from areas not surveyed[/I], not a total-country estimate as in the Lancet survey! So the methodologies are not comparable -- the Lancet methodology is superior to those other surveys, for its purpose, as I've previously mentioned.

[quote]One does need to factor in possible sources for under-counting, and this ought to be possible.[/quote]... such as by extending the surveys to the entire country, as the Lancet survey did.

[quote]IIRC, the Lancet surveyors report 90% of deaths have a corresponding death certificate. If so, then the Iraqi government ought to off by about 10%.[/quote]Do you really think that even the vaunted Iraqi bureaucracy's accuracy in [I]war zones[/I] is 90%? Really? That documents keep flowing even as bullets and bombs are flying?

The Lancet surveyors saw death certificates held by actual resident families. They didn't rely on a bureaucracy's functioning smoothly in war zones.

[quote]Yes, the government has an interest in reporting lower numbers and may not be functioning well enough to collect and count all the death certificates.[/quote]" ... may not be functioning well enough to collect and count all the death certificates" -- but that (mal-)functioning is exactly what the morgue/hospital surveys -- the ones whose figures you prefer -- depended on!

[quote]It would be nice if an independent group could gain access to death certificate records to come up with another data point.[/quote]... such as a group that ... well ... travelled to all parts of the country, even the dangerous areas, to survey actual families, who are more likely to have kept death certificates in their possession than a war-fractured bureaucracy is?

[quote]If hospitals and morgues are where death certificates are issued (I don't know that to be the case), then why are the hospital and morgue surveys generating significantly lower numbers?[/quote]Because -- in a [B]war zone[/B] institutions such as hospitals and morgues tend not to function as smoothly as they would in more preaceful areas -- that's why! That's why it's more reliable to go to individual families, who in a war zone are more likely than the institutions to have certfificates for their relatives!

[quote]The more data we have, the more likely it is we can resolve the discrepancies and come to a more accurate estimate.[/quote]But even though the Lancet survey did give us more data than we previously had, you're not willing to acknowledge that it allows an estimate at all, in contrast to the lower-bound-only provided by previous surveys.

[quote]Until more data is available, this scientist is not going to back any one of the numbers. At this point, all I'll concede is we have a good estimate of the lower bound.[/quote]... which is consistent with the Lancet survey.

[quote=M29;97350]or one can read what Bush said, almost in passing. MSNBC article [URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8792302/[/URL]

“You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”[/quote]But that's not all he said, even in just that article.

First sentence in that article:

"President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life."

From [URL]http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/02/bush_endorses_intelligent_design/[/URL]:

"As governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution.

The president said yesterday that he favors the same approach for intelligent design ''so people can understand what the debate is about.""

[quote]Look, he was talking with 5 Texan reporters, and the White House backpedaled the next day. End of story.[/quote]No, not end, and not backpedaling.

From [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html?ex=1280721600&en=8bbf73d2f5204260&ei=5088&partner=r[/URL]:

"At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Mr. Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger 3rd
...
said that Mr. Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes."

See? He wants ID introduced into science classes!

The weasel words "as part of the "social context"" are just because he and the IDers want to "get their foot in the door".

[quote]Bush is not championing ID. If he was, I'd oppose him.[/quote]He wants it introduced into science classes. What will be your first action in opposing him?

[quote]Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong at all with universities teaching Comparative Religion[/quote]That's not what this is about. Don't you know that?

[quote]and there is nothing wrong with HS kids learning that some people believe in ID.[/quote]In comparative religion class, fine. But not in science class!

I stated that I'd oppose Bush if he was championing ID.

You respond that Bush is championing ID and to prove it you cite:[LIST][*]one article dated 2 August 2005[*]one article dated 3 August 2005[*]one article dated 1 August 2005.[/LIST]Today is 10 February 2007.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;98155]Do you have any evidence that the recruiting process was actually biased[/quote]

Read what I posted. I said it *could* have been biased. My point is that a survey has several places where human mistakes and biases can contaminate the raw data. That is why I believe it is imprudent to give too much weight to the conclusions until the raw data is independently verified.

[quote]...previous war zones that was good enough then for the UN to adopt their figures as official estimates?[/quote]

So if the U.N. calls a result official it must be accurate? Therefore the official U.N. estimate of 34,000 deaths in 2006 must be accurate? Certainly an *official* U.N. estimate couldn't be off by a factor of 20.

NOTE: Before you go bonkers over the above paragraph, I don't endorse the U.N. count or the Lancet count until more independent studies are done to validate the raw data and better explain / quantify the discrepancies.

[quote]Because -- in a war zone institutions such as hospitals and morgues tend not to function as smoothly as they would in more preaceful areas -- that's why![/quote]

Why do you think hospitals and morgues lose 95% of their death certificate carrying them to a filing cabinet in the same building? Maybe there are U.S. and Iraqi troops with shoot-to-kill orders in the hallways preventing doctors and nurses from reaching administration offices?

As I've said before, and I'll say it again, do an independent study. Show why hospitals and morgues are losing death certificates and quantify the percentage they are losing. If that correlates well with the Lancet data then I'll have much more faith in the Lancet result.

Have we beaten this dead horse enough? Can we put this argument to bed now?

[quote=Prime95;98181]Read what I posted.[/quote]I did.
[quote]I said it *could* have been biased.[/quote]I understood that.

But the question I had was whether you were saying that because you thought it actually was biased or that there was evidence pointing to that, or whether you were just smoke-screening because you didn't want to admit that the 650,000 figure was possible. Since you presented no evidence and no claim that you had any, I concluded that you were smokescreening with your biased-investigator hypothesis.

[quote]My point is that a survey has several places where human mistakes and biases can contaminate the raw data.[/quote]So? The track record of the Lancet report's investigators indicates that they have experience in countering those mistakes/biases. You apparently don't have any evidence that the mistakes and biases in the Lancet report equal or exceed those of any other report, so your dwelling on the theoretical possibilities of mistakes/biases rather than presenting evidence of such seems out-of-place. That is, _all_ such surveys have such possibilities, and it's _always_ part of each competent and honest survey to try to minimize those. Why keep going into that about the Lancet survey when you haven't done so with any other survey?

Do you have any evidence that the mistakes/biases of the Lancet survey equal or exceed those of any other Iraqi death survey? If not, why don't you discuss the potential mistakes/biases of any other survey?

[quote]So if the U.N. calls a result official it must be accurate?[/quote]What I meant is that there's been plenty of opportunity for anyone who suspected any of the team's previous results to have objected to a high-visibility UN acceptance of previous reports. In the absence of any such dissent, a reasonable conclusion is that no one of any substantial standing considers the team's previous results to be less accurate than any competing reports.

[quote]What it Has anyone else presented more accurate estimates?[/quote]Go ahead -- [I]Show us such claims, if any, of more accurate reports. Here's your chance to challenge the Lancet survey team's work accuracy in a meaningful manner!![/I]

[quote]Is there any significant controversy about the survey results accepted by the UN for other war zones[/quote]Not that I know of, but I'd welcome your presentation of any such controversy by responsible and qualified parties!

[quote]Therefore the official U.N. estimate of 34,000 deaths in 2006 must be accurate?[/quote]What is the source of that 34,000 figure? In order to comment on its accuracy, I'd want to know where and how it came from.

For example, does the 34,000 figure refer to the same categories of deaths as the 650,000 figure? I wouldn't be surprised if one referred to a certain subset of the category included in the other. Where are the details?

[quote] Certainly an *official* U.N. estimate couldn't be off by a factor of 20.[/quote]Is that your sincere statement of opinion?

[quote]I don't endorse the U.N. count or the Lancet count until more independent studies are done to validate the raw data and better explain / quantify the discrepancies.[/quote]But you seem to doubt the Lancet report more than you doubt any other count -- why? Or will you plainly state that all objections you've raised to the Lancet report also apply to all other surveys you've mentioned?

[quote]Why do you think hospitals and morgues lose 95% of their death certificate carrying them to a filing cabinet in the same building?[/quote]I've never said that that (losing 95% ...) happens. Are you implying/claiming that it does? If so, what is your supporting evidence?

Or is this just a straw-man?

[quote]Maybe there are U.S. and Iraqi troops with shoot-to-kill orders in the hallways preventing doctors and nurses from reaching administration offices?[/quote]Are you presenting that hypothesis sincerely? Do you have any evidence for it? If not, why are you posting that? Another rhetorical straw-man?

[quote]Show why hospitals and morgues are losing death certificates and quantify the percentage they are losing.[/quote]Be sure to include a study of how many death certificates never reach hospitals or morgues in order to be lost there, and so on.

[quote]If that correlates well with the Lancet data then I'll have much more faith in the Lancet result.[/quote]Oh, you would? Please provide details when available!

[quote]Have we beaten this dead horse enough? Can we put this argument to bed now?[/quote]Well, I'm curious about your answers to my questions above, regarding evidence, rhetorical devices, and your differential criticism of the Lancet report compared to your critiques of other reports, so I prefer to keep this matter open until then.

[quote=M29;98173]You respond that Bush is championing ID[/quote]I responded that there was more to the article than you implied, and that that other content plus other articles showed that Bush was publicly supporting the teaching of ID in science classes.

[quote]and to prove it you cite:[LIST][*]one article dated 2 August 2005[*]one article dated 3 August 2005[*]one article dated 1 August 2005.[/LIST][/quote]... and the MSNBC article you linked to at [URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8792302/[/URL] is also dated "Aug 1, 2005". So?

You seemed to imply that that 2005 MSNBC article showed that President Bush was not lending his support to ID. (Or why else did you link to it?) I then responded that not only that article, but also other [I]contemporary[/I] news articles demonstrated the opposite: that Bush did lend his authority to ID.

[quote]Today is 10 February 2007.[/quote]... and your point is ... ?

I don't recall any report that Bush has repudiated his support for teaching ID in science classes. Can you point to one?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;98263]why don't you discuss the potential mistakes/biases of any other survey?[/quote]

Because we've already agreed that the other studies have sources of undercounting. The amount of undercounting has not been quantified. We debate Lancet because you believe it is the gold standard and I demand independent corroboration before giving it my blessing.

[quote]What is the source of that 34,000 figure?[/quote]

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6266393.stm[/url]

[quote]But you seem to doubt the Lancet report more than you doubt any other count -- why? Or will you plainly state that all objections you've raised to the Lancet report also apply to all other surveys you've mentioned?[/quote]

I have doubts because the Lancet count is 20 times higher than the other surveys (that's where my 95% loss rate for death certificates comes from). I am skeptical that the other surveys undercounted by that much. I am open to new independent studies confirming or refuting the Lancet numbers and/or studies that quantify the amount of undercounting in the other studies.

[quote]so I prefer to keep this matter open until then.[/QUOTE]

Is the horse dead now?

P.S. Your last post attributed 2 quotes to me that I don't believe I made ("What it Has anyone else presented more accurate estimates?" and "Is there any significant controversy about the survey results accepted by the UN for other war zones"). Probably some kind of cut and paste foul up.

[quote=Prime95;98282]P.S. Your last post attributed 2 quotes to me that I don't believe I made ("What it Has anyone else presented more accurate estimates?" and "Is there any significant controversy about the survey results accepted by the UN for other war zones"). Probably some kind of cut and paste foul up.[/quote]Yikes! I must've been pretty tired -- (* checks timestamps of recent postings and compares those with mental log of recent activity: yup, I was *) -- not to have noticed that I had ([i]details omitted here[/i]) whilst in the middle of replying to you. (* Subconscious sez: Remember when I told you there was something strange about that part. Conscious: Yeahhh ... I do! ... Why didn't you 'splain to me what it was?!?! Subc_: Not my department. *)

[quote=Prime95;98282]Because we've already agreed that the other studies have sources of undercounting.[/quote]... and they acknowledge that -- no mystery.

[quote]The amount of undercounting has not been quantified.[/quote]But we _can_ say that the other studies establish only lower bounds, while only the Lancet study attempts to estimate the actual total rather than a lower bound.

[quote]We debate Lancet because you believe it is the gold standard[/quote]No, I just "believe" it's the only serious attempt I know of that aims for the actual total rather than aiming for only a lower bound.

[quote]and I demand independent corroboration before giving it my blessing.[/quote]First, my fanciful Response A:

It looks more like Bush-supporters in general, not just you in particular, have not yet gotten used to the possibility that war is, actually, hell -- rather than that war (this one, anyway) fulfills the neocon pre-war fantasy of a righteous liberation followed by instant democracy and flowers strewn at the feet of the liberators once the oppressive darkness of Sauron ... that is, Saddam ... was lifted from the land of Iraq, perhaps forgetting that even in Tolkien's story the aftermath of war was grim and depressing (from J.R.R.'s own war experience).

On a related note, I'm also marvelling at how some of the Republicans who scorned "nation-building" in the Balkans during the 1990s are now faced with the apparently-unanticipated consequences of "you broke it --> you fix it" in Iraq of the 2000s.

Now, my more-sober Response B:

Given the lower bounds from the other surveys, what are you prepared (based on what you know at present) to accept, without instant disbelief, as the range of the actual total? For instance, 3-5 x lower bounds? 7-10 x lower bounds? 1.5-2 x lower bounds?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;98340]Given the lower bounds from the other surveys, what are you prepared (based on what you know at present) to accept, without instant disbelief, as the range of the actual total? For instance, 3-5 x lower bounds? 7-10 x lower bounds? 1.5-2 x lower bounds?[/QUOTE]

When the surveys are counting different things violent deaths vs. excess deaths. I would accept 2-5x. When the surveys are comparing the same thing violent deaths vs. violent deaths I'd accept up to 3-4x. This is based more on gut feel from sporadic news reports rather than what I know to be statisticly true at present.