Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Favre
Options
Comments
-
-
+1 on Dilfer for HOFTheHeadhunter wrote: »It can't work like that because if you go on Stats Dan Marino is the man, if you go on team achievements Trent Dilfer should be in the HOF!?!
Its not as simple as just stats or achievements.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »Care to elaborate?"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.
The term is part of a phrase attributed to the 19th Century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, among others, and later popularized in the United States by, among others, Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The phrase is not found in Disraeli's works nor is it known within his lifetime and for years afterward. Many coiners have been proposed. The most plausible, on current evidence, is Charles Wentworth Dilke (1843-1911).
[edit] History
Twain popularized the saying in "Chapters from My Autobiography", published in the North American Review, No. DCXVIII., July 5, 1907. "Figures often beguile me," he wrote, "particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"[1]
Alternative attributions include, among many others (e.g., Walter Bagehot and Arthur James Balfour) the radical journalist and politician Henry Du Pré Labouchère (1831-1912), and Leonard H. Courtney, who used the phrase in 1895 and two years later became president of the Royal Statistical Society.[2] Courtney referred to a future statesman, not a past one.[3]
As of August 2009[update], the earliest instance of the phrase found in print dates to a letter written June 8, 1891, published June 13, 1891, The National Observer p.93(-94): NATIONAL PENSIONS [To the Editor of _The National Observer_] London, 8th June, 1891 "Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics. It is on statistics and on the absence of statistics that the advocate of national pensions relies....." Later, in October 1891, as a query in Notes and Queries, the pseudonymous questioner, signing as "St Swithin", asked for the originator of the phrase, indicating common usage even at that date.[3] The pseudonym has been attributed to Eliza Gutch.[4] Charles W. Dilke is reported twice in Oct. 1891 to have used the phrase, without attributing it to others. "Sir Charles Dilke [1843-1911] was saying the other day that false statements might be arranged according to their degree under three heads, fibs, lies, and statistics." The Bristol Mercury and Daily Post, Monday, October 19 1891
PUBLIC MEN ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS The Derby Mercury (Derby, England), October 21, 1891; Issue 9223 "SIR CHARLES DILKE AND THE BISHOPS" "A mass meeting of the slate quarry-men of Festiniog [Ffestiniog, Wales] was held Wednesday night [Oct. 14] to protest against certain dismissals from one of the quarries...." He [Dilke] observed that the speeches of the Bishops on the disestablishment question reminded him that there were three degrees of untruth--a fib, a lie, and statistics (Laughter)"
The phrase, as noted by Robert Giffen in 1892, was a variation on a phrase about three types of unreliable witnesses, a liar, a damned liar, and an expert (Economic Journal 2 (6) (1892), 209-238, first paragraph; the paper was previously read at a meeting of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science at Hobart in January 1892). 1892 Jan talk, June pub Robert Giffen (1837-1910, Walter Bagehot's asstistant editor at The Economist 1868ff; 1882-4 President of the Statistical Society): "An old jest runs to the effect that there are three degrees of comparison among liars. There are liars, there are outrageous liars, and there are scientific experts. This has lately been adapted to throw dirt upon statistics. There are three degrees of comparison, it is said, in lying. There are lies, there are outrageous lies, and there are statistics."
That earlier (still post-Disraeli) phrase is first found in Nature in 1885, page 74 Nov 26, 1885 "A well- known lawyer, now a judge, once grouped witnesses into three classes: simple liars, damned liars, and experts. He did not mean that the expert ..."
Dr. E.R.L. Gould, who used the phrase in 1892 himself (2 Dec Prof. Alfred Marshall examination of Gould for the Royal Commission on Labour, Minutes of Evidence Taken Before the Commission Sitting as a Whole, response no. 6743) attributed it to Dilke. The Temperance Problem: Past and Future, Page 15 by Elgin Ralston Lovell Gould (1894); 15 pages reprinted from The Forum, November 1894. "Sir Charles Dilke in one sense was right when he said, 'There are three degrees of untruth,--a fib, a lie, and statistics' ..."
These and other relevant quotations are at American Dialect Society list archives posts by Stephen Goranson.
Statistics are fun
0 -
_Buck Rogers wrote: »He is the one QB that would get stuck in to any body to defend a team mate.
No problem with the rest of your post but I think we've all seen Favre 'attempt' a tackle
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Favre Mic'd up for the Lions game. Very good watching
Hahaha amazing. . pissing vinegar. . hahaha.
I probably was a little OTT with saying it would be a disgrace if he didnt win it so I'll rephrase.
It'll be a disgrace if any QB this season gets it over him.. . . or even any player except Johnson 0 -
-
-
Statistics are fun
Too long I couldn't be bothered to read. But the sad thing is for you anyways you actually bolstered your own argument with an irrelevant piece from Wikipedia of all places.
Fact of the matter is statistics can be used to support arguments when it comes to the NFL. But what failed for you is I wasn't using them to bolster anything. I merely posted a piece that I thought was interesting about interceptions.
This is what I said:Before you write of Favre and all his picks read this Interesting Article:
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...rception-myth/
So my argument was neither weak nor strong because I wasn't making one. Everyone knows on here how much I like Brett Favre anyways. It wouldn't be the first time I defended him and it wont be the last. I started following the NFL a year before he started and practically followed his career.
Next time you add to a thread be a tad more constructive. Its annoying when someone writes a one liner that makes no sense and follow it up later on in the thread with dribble.0 -
tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »Too long I couldn't be bothered to read. But the sad thing is for you anyways you actually bolstered your own argument with an irrelevant piece from Wikipedia of all places.
Fact of the matter is statistics can be used to support arguments when it comes to the NFL. But what failed for you is I wasn't using them to bolster anything. I merely posted a piece that I thought was interesting about interceptions.
This is what I said:
yadda yadda yadda
So my argument was neither weak nor strong because I wasn't making one. Everyone knows on here how much I like Brett Favre anyways. It wouldn't be the first time I defended him and it wont be the last. I started following the NFL a year before he started and practically followed his career.
Next time you add to a thread be a tad more constructive. Its annoying when someone writes a one liner that makes no sense and follow it up later on in the thread with dribble.
I'm confused... I didn't have an argument. You appear to have constructed one for me though, and rebutted it. Fair play!
(I thought the article was interesting too btw.) 0
Advertisement