> "unverified statistics" are no more than opinions themselves.

Conjuring up the ad-hoc term "unverified statistics" seems a bit extreme and
unfair to the hardworking researcher did the analysis that produced the
statistic, the reporter that found it, the fact checker that checked it, and
the newsreader that reported it on air.

But the claim is offered that they are "no more than opinions" without any
citation to any study to back up that claim.
This seems an unverified and unsupported claim about "unverified"
statistics.
Or is an opinion offered that statistics are opinions unless verified?

And who does this purported "verification"?
Most all of the statistics I see are simply presented, leaving any
"verification" to the reader who wishes to download the (often massive)
dataset and crunch the numbers for themselves.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html