I want to bring a different tack to our usually fun forays into Data Analysis: Instead of me railing about some statistical aberation, smoke coming out of my ears as I type, I want you, dear readers, to exercise those muscles.
For this, we go to a reliable source of bad data: The WSJ’s OpEd page.
While editorials are by nature supposed to be opinion pieces, over time I have noted that this page has a tendency to disconnect from reality when it comes to mathematics, data, statistics. At times, the word dissembling comes to mind.
Feel free to agree or disagree with the premise of the commentary. But this is not a political exercise. Instead, I am looking for ways you find that the data has been spun or misinterpreted or
otherwise omitted in support of this argument.
You may also feel free to argue the data is correct, or that the Op-Ed understates the facts. Either way, focus on the data.
Professors of Economics, Statistics, and Mathematics can feel free to make this a regular part of their curriculum. And don’t limit yourself to the WSJ: The NYT, WP, LAT are all fair game. But I keep coming back to the WSJ OpEd for their long standing tendency to use economic or budgetary data, and then to distort it.
No matter: Lets see how strong your powers of observations are: Identify the errors in this Op Ed:
Our Small Defense Budget
October 20, 2006; Page A12 http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009124
The full text is at the free Opinion Journal site.
NOTE: I do not want to make this about politics, but, rather, about how data is tortured for political ends. The most political this could get is perhaps how the WSJ Op-Ed page advocated for tax cuts during the war or things along that line which impact the budget — but not the political arguments.
Make the focus on numbers, not partisanship.
Call this crowdsourcing: If anyone wants to reference charts, tables, etc, feel free to do so, and I will gather them all in a follow up post next week.
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.