You are on page 1of 22

Statistics

Statistics are pieces of data that are gathered and analyzed to provide information that can have an impact on our lives. On the following pages is a historical story showing how the use of statistics can make a difference.

It was the year 1840. The place was London, England.

Thousands of people in the cities were dying of a mysterious disease called cholera. There was no known cure and no one knew what caused the disease. What was especially frustrating was that it was unclear why people contracted the disease while others did not.

Doctor John Snow, a London doctor, decided to place dots on a map of London to represent each cholera death.

He found out that there was a connection between the cholera deaths and one water pump on Broad Street in London. It became very clear that something was contaminating the water at this pump and killing thousands of people. Dr. Snows use of statistics led to changes that saved thousands of lives.

Statistical Evidence and its uses


Statistical evidence can be gathered from polling a sample of a target population about a given topic. Uses of Statistics: Political Party Media Advertisers Doctors

How the research is done


Need to consider three questions 1. What do I need to find out This is called characteristic of interest 2.Whom do I want to know(target population) 3.Whom can I study to get the accurate answers about my entire population

For a study to be accurate and reliable


The sample must be large enough The sample must represent the target audience The sample must be random

Question to be asked about statistical reports


What is the sample size Is the sample representative in all significant characteristics and in the proportion of those characteristics ? Have all significant characteristics been considered ? Is the study is a poll, are the questioned biased? What is the credibility of the polling organization or research institute? Is the survey biased because of the vested interest of the company tat paid for it ?

Generalizations
Inductive argument move from things known to things unknown. Sample- item or items we know something about. Target class- group of items to which we wish to extend our knowledge.

Types of Generalizations
Statistical Generalization Analogical Generalization Causal Generalization

Statistical Generalization
Draws a conclusion about a portion of the target group. 1/5 of adult Americans are obese.
More teenagers die of accidents related to alcohol than do adults. Most jungles are hot.

Analogical Generalization
Draws a conclusion about a target item on the basis of a shared similarity or similarities.
This pair of shoes, like these shoes, is made of leather, has the same style and same maker. Thus, like these shoes, this new pair of shoes will be comfortable.

Causal Generalization
Draws a conclusion about an observed relationship, i.e., that this relationship will always occur, on the basis of previously observed instances of the relationship.

Example

at time 1, y follows x. at time 2, y follows x. at time 3, y follows x. etc. Thus, x causes y.

DAVID HUME (1711-1776)

THE MIND AND CAUSATION


According to Hume, The true idea of the human mind is to consider it as a system of different perceptions or different existences which are linked together by the relation of cause and effect, and mutually produce, destroy, influence, and modify each other.
For instance, I can experience hunger, and my hunger is an impression, perception, or existence of which I am aware. This hunger causes me to think of eating, and so influences my thoughts. The thought of acting on my hunger produces the idea of eating an apple. Biting into the apple is an effect of my hunger. This act of eating is further a cause of my experiencing a certain taste. This taste is an effect of that act. This effect can in turn cause me to remember how good an apple tastes. This recollection is an effect of that cause. In addition, the bite modifies my hunger since it is not now quite as strong as it was before. One good taste of the apple may cause me to take a further bite, which leads to another and another until the earlier impression of my hunger is destroyed.

MEMORY AND CAUSATION


Hume says that memory is the main source of personal identity. Had we no memory, we never should have any notion of causation, nor consequently of that chain of causes and effects which constitute our self or person. Memory is the source of our knowledge of causation, but having once acquired this notion of causation from the memory, we can extend the same chain of causes, and consequently the identity of our persons beyond our memory, and can comprehend times, and circumstances, and actions which we have entirely forgot, but suppose in general to have existed. In this view, therefore, memory does not so much produce as discover personal identity, by showing us the relation of cause and effect among our different perceptions.

SUMMARY OF HUMES THEORY OF THE SELF


The self for Hume is not a simple, unchanging entity of which we are aware in experience. Rather, we are only aware of a number of things in sensation and reflection - data of the external and internal world - which succeed one another rapidly in time. We can mistake the rapid succession of resembling perceptions for a self, but as no perception or experience is constant and unchanging, we are not really aware of anything which we can call a self at all. This is called the bundle theory of the self, and there is no need to suppose that a substance underlies the bundle to give it support, or to bind its perceptions together. Memory and causation are most important to the sense we have of personal identity over time.

A PROBLEM FOR HUME


Recall that Hume says that every idea must originate from a prior impression, and as there is no impression of a simple, unchanging self in experience, then we have no idea of such a self. This results in a problem for Hume in that, as M. A. Notturno notes, if Humes theory of ideas were true, then he should not be able to understand the very idea of the theory which he is criticizing. How could Hume understand what the terms simple, unchanging self are meant to signify if all ideas are dependent on prior impressions, and there is no impression of a simple, unchanging self in experience? And if he cannot understand it, then how can he argue against it? Even if it is false that we find a simple, unchanging self in experience it seems nevertheless true that we understand the idea of such a thing. But, once again, by Humes own theorizing about the origin of ideas in experience he should not be able to understand the very theory which he says is untrue.

Theory of Technical Causation


Necessary condition A sufficient condition Multiple causes Immediate causes

You might also like