Wow, stats really trigger some people.
Stats themselves aren't wrong, unless they're actually measured incorrectly. In my day job, if the software system I'm responsible for isn't performing well, I want to look at all the numbers. From there, I try to build a story that explains things. If that turns out wrong, I look at the stats again, collecting more if appropriate, and try to explain again.
But if we're measuring correctly, the stats themselves aren't "wrong".
I see this thread's revival as Bingo saying, "Here is a more complete set of stats from last year. Some interesting numbers there." Instead of a "Hmmm... they still don't match my eye-test, that makes me wonder why?" the response was a bit over the top by some. Maybe they were hurt by an Actuary in the past, I don't know.
|