About those Lancet studies on civilian deaths in Iraq
Neil Munro and Carl Cannon of National Journal wrote an exhaustive analysis of the two Lancet studies that estimated civilian deaths in Iraq, and the number of concerns they raised is overwhelming. The main summary:
NJ has identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute.
The researchers have refused access to the original data, thus stonewalling proper peer review. One of the authors in the 2004 report took his name off the 2006 study because of his concerns about the lack of supervision. Munro and Cannon also detail a long laundry list of concerns about the methodology. Even critics of our Iraq venture had trouble stomaching their estimates.
Officials at Iraq Body Count strongly opposed the Iraq war yet issued a detailed critique of the Lancet II study. Researchers wading into a field that is this fraught with danger have a responsibility not to be reckless with statistics, the group said. The numbers claimed by the Lancet study would, under the normal ratios of warfare, result in more than a million Iraqis wounded seriously enough to require medical treatment, according to this critique. Yet official sources in Iraq have not reported any such phenomenon. An Iraq Body Count analysis showed that the Lancet II numbers would have meant that 1,000 Iraqis were dying every day during the first half of 2006, "with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms." The February 2006 bombing of the Golden Mosque is widely credited with plunging Iraq into civil war, yet the Lancet II report posits the equivalent of five to 10 bombings of this magnitude in Iraq every day for three years."In the light of such extreme and improbable implications," the Iraq Body Count report stated, "a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data."
There are serious concerns about the objectivity of the Iraqi surveyors, both in terms of bias and political pressure on their work, and the authors of the study and the editor of Lancet are self-described advocates against our efforts in Iraq. The hardline Left will continue to believe that the Lancet results are true, but for the rest of us, the studies should viewed as unreliable until a true peer-reviewed examination shows otherwise.
--
"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
Help support the Forvm by buying items through our links. All proceeds go to defraying our hosting costs.
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites -
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs -
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
War and Piece
Politics -
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net
War -
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business -
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech -
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal -
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports -
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Books, Film and Music -
Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators -
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post
References -
As IBC points out, that's 1000 people a day from violence alone.
Also, what people forget is that a 95% confidence interval is fine for one test, but for two . . . then you have a 10% chance that one of them is outside the bounds, and that's just plain fairly likely.
The first study, though, made a lot of sense to me.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
)is calling the data collection flawed.
The method, the statistics, the historical comparisons
are all in range and correct, if you parse out the nonsense
and mud slinging its that the critics say that the data
was made up or was badly collected.
That critics continue to attack the stats and method
undermines their approach as these are standard and
are used elsewhere without drawing such flak.
The only way to address the actual data is to run
the survey again addressing the issues of concern.
I look forward to seeing the peer reviews and the
results of the new, fuller survey, until then the
results remain the best effort.
- reply
- quote
)From all indications, that the number of civilian deaths does not matter. Kind of like Cheney's remark that deficits do not matter.
That is why there is never any concern about what the actual number might be -- only the need to politically discredit the Lancet study. Whether you believe the Lancet study or others with a lesser total (I think the number is less but probably still well into six figures), two facts loom large. That the number is sickeningly large, and official posturing grossly understates the number for political reasons.
A rational analysis of the effects of this war would not sweep this question under the rug.
- reply
- quote
)But this conservative is keenly concerned about civilian deaths, and all the more so under the current strategy because civilian casualties are one measure for gauging how well the counterinsurgency is working. This conservative is also keenly interested that the best possible information is coming out as it relates to civilian deaths. I would presume that the right is similarly interested.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )...they don't care about civilian deaths - except maybe to try to maximize them, whenever nobody's watching. All they really want to do is kill and maim and torture brown people. Mostly for the fun of it, but also partly to get more votes from their racist Southern base.
They're pretty much pure evil.
And, what's worse, they're so rude and insensitive! Sometimes they actually dare to question the patriotism of their opponents!
Worthless, inhuman scum. That's what they are. All of them.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- reply
- quote
| parent )public findings of fact even if inconvenient to there personal feelings or positions on the war its need and the view of it today... You cannot attack a study and then not offer another one. It is the having the cake and eating it also problem.. Which is why I question the point and purpose of the diary. I hope Bird Dog will clarify why this is an issue to go over now and his thinking on it...
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent )And yes you can.
Why should pro war conservatives reinvent the wheel? There is no conceivable study they could sponsor that would enjoy even *half* the credibility on the left of the anti-war "Iraqi Body Count" project.
As for your claim that "you cannot attack a study and then not offer another one"...well, in the first, place, I *have* offered another one, and, in the second place, if you really think that I or anybody else has to do so, before attacking the ridiculous Lancet fraud, then I can only conclude that you haven't the first clue when it comes to scientific procedure.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Second what is the point of attacking the study in the first place. "ridiculous Lancet fraud" I mean first you have to prove Fraud.. Platitudes will not do and second what is the problem with the study that it overestimates that you do not like its findings? What is the root of the problem? Why debate this issue now and how is it relevant?
That it showed a human cost to the war? That the cost was some number even for the sake of the meta the study was off to a degree. Are you saying that the study was a fraud or just has errors in its methodology?
Surely someone has credibility with both the left and right to do a scientific study. Are you saying that their is no one who would do one without bias? No one who values the truth and the principles involved that would do one?
--That the lancet and John Hopkins are radical hotbeds of anti-American and British views?
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent )It's not that there's a drive to maximize the brown people deaths, it's that every problem seems to involve brown people deaths as part of the solution.
Which are cared about until politically inconvenient, then forgotten about, then cared about again as the winds shift.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )So glad you found a sentence there that you could disagree with, P.M.
I would hate to think that you were beyond satire.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Is the study flawed? Most historical studies have come to view the underestimation of lives lost in war zones. Since the ability to keep track of and count the loss to a provable degree is IMHO impossible. That they might have over estimated the loss makes little difference IMHO.. They brought to light that their was a cost period. An issues that was not publicly debated or talked about in the media much before the study.
You seem to believe the study was some kind of big wedge that had no relevance. In fact you seem to try and equate it with adding and abetting the enemy.. I find that a straw man view that is used to quiet debate and issues that fail to back up or upset the view that this was a noble endeavor with merit. So why we are rehashing this meta issue is besides me... I mean if I go back and list all the pre-war predication of supporters.. on cost and time lines is that in some way helpful to the historic record of failure in this engagement?
That the Open society institute is a supporter is also a straw man. Soros disagrees with Bush because he does not see his ethos as supporting what Soros believes in his heart. In fact he is not some pie in the sky left wing nut. He is IMHO a much more classic liberal with libertarian views.
Lets look at the link you showed to look at OSI....
About OSI and the Soros Foundations Network
The Open Society Institute (OSI), a private operating and grant-making foundation, aims to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform. On a local level, OSI implements a range of initiatives to support the rule of law, education, public health, and independent media. At the same time, OSI works to build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as combating corruption and rights abuses.
OSI was created in 1993 by investor and philanthropist George Soros to support his foundations in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Those foundations were established, starting in 1984, to help countries make the transition from communism. OSI has expanded the activities of the Soros foundations network to other areas of the world where the transition to democracy is of particular concern. The Soros foundations network encompasses more than 60 countries, including the United States.
From his book...
Open society as an ideal
If my contention that we suffer from a deficiency of shared social values is correct, then the supreme challenge of our time is to establish a set of fundamental values that applies to large transactional, global society. I should like to take up that challenge. I propose the concept of open society as an ideal to which our global society should aspire. My contention is that it is in the interest of open societies to help foster the development of open societies throughout the world and to establish international institutions appropriate to a global open society.
It is based on the recognition that our understanding is imperfect and that a perfect society is beyond our reach; We must content ourselves with the second best: an imperfect society that holds itself open to, and strives for, improvement. Using this definition the US, EU and many other parts of the world come close to qualifying as open societies.
From his book Open society reforming global capitalism..
Soros is a big follower of Karl Popper:
Popper was born in 1902 to a Viennese family of Jewish origin. He taught in Austria until 1937, when he emigrated to New Zealand in anticipation of the Nazi annexation of Austria the following year, and he settled in England in 1949. Before the annexation, Popper had written mainly about the philosophy of science, but from 1938 until the end of the Second World War he focused his energies on political philosophy, seeking to diagnose the intellectual origins of German and Soviet totalitarianism. The Open Society and Its Enemies was the result.
In the book, Popper condemned Plato, Marx, and Hegel as "holists" and "historicists"--a holist, according to Popper, believes that individuals are formed entirely by their social groups; historicists believe that social groups evolve according to internal principles that it is the intellectual's task to uncover. Popper, by contrast, held that social affairs are unpredictable, and argued vehemently against social engineering. He also sought to shift the focus of political philosophy away from questions about who ought to rule toward questions about how to minimize the damage done by the powerful. The book was an immediate sensation, and--though it has long been criticized for its portrayals of Plato, Marx, and Hegel--it has remained a landmark on the left and right alike for its defense of freedom and the spirit of critical inquiry.
Open Society and Its Enemies (Volume 1)
Karl Popper
IMHO the Soros hate is a distractive strawman being attacked because he is philosophically opposed to the much of the social views on the right and does not view that the current market system has enough checks and balances in some societies to move humanity where it needs to go.. He is pretty unabashed anti-communist and anti-authoritarian..
I would be interested on how you disagree or why?
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
)You can't tell me I'm making strawman arguments when you're lifting a few bales yourself.
You seem to believe the study was some kind of big wedge that had no relevance.
Half right. It is a big wedge, but it is also relevant because it has the names Johns Hopkins and Lancet attached to it.
In fact you seem to try and equate it with adding and abetting the enemy.
If I were accusing the surveyors and researchers of deliberately manipulating the data to achieve their preferred outcome, then you'd have a point, but I didn't make such an assertion. I hope they didn't, for their benefit. If they did, then blood is on their hands.
As for Soros, judge him and his network of organizations by where the money goes. By that measure, he is a hardline progressive liberal. By dint of his enormous wealth and the tens of millions he's contributed to all manner of left-wing causes, he and his Democracy Alliance are extremely influential. That he is anti-communist and anti-authoritarian is a credit to him, but I wish he'd direct more of his resources to anti-communist and anti-authoritarian organizations. In 2002, for example, 92% of OSI money went to organizations within the US, and I'm pretty sure we're way down on the list of communist authoritarian regimes in this world.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )judgement that since we have the largest collective foot print and the tactics used were very authoritarian that the US was in need of the bulk of his effort at least for the time. If you look at his giving under his open society view he is very consistent. In fact I believe that he will in many ways refocus on other areas when we have a change in leadership I am not sure that it will be zero.
That it happens that your personal choices are the target at this time is the real issue that upsets conservatives IMHO. The funny thing is that he sees authoritarian right or left as the same with few differences. In fact he didn't have a big domestic foot print until the current administrations use of fear and subterfuge after 911 to try and limit debate on the issues facing us as a country. I'm sure you disagree...
As for the study I guess the straw man I see is that unless the statistics are manipulated. (I doubt it personally) then the issue on the numbers is of no real value. That the people had that issue to view at all was more important and a valuable IMHO input into the information needed to judge the endeavor honestly. I maybe wrong but what is it that you are upset about? That a study maybe incorrect? Stats are not something I remotely comprehend. I am sure that their are ways that cluster studies are done that are accepted practice. If this study was done that way then the issues is moot. IMHO view at this late hour with all the imformation we have it was dead along time ago. If we regardless of party are upset that our ethos and or the subjects we care about are negatively impacted I would say that is just tough regardless if it is the good of money spent on x or y... I mean is the point of questioning the study that it should not have been done? That it should not have been public? Why are we not allowed to view the truth of this conflict. The blood and horror the clips that are not put on the news? War is a hard sell and should be, the biggest problem is that the team in charge was not candid IMHO of the reasons the costs and the possibilities with the public. They did use the terms "mushroom cloud"; "Pay for itself" etc... We need a starting point on why this issue is so important to you and what the reason to discuss it is. IMHO it did not have an impact in a way that seems to drive a debate at this late hour.
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent ).
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )I used to teach selections from the section on Plato when I'd do the Republic. Though I strove mightily to present Popper's view fairly, I couldn't help feeling like an abject failure as a teacher on those rare occasions that a student found that position compelling as a critique of the Republic.
Not that this has anything to do with your point.
--Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
- quote
| parent )Soros take on it.. They are both somewhat high minded. Not easy reads. I am sure you could teach me a tone on phil- I am getting ready to take basic phil with the wife this semester. I am not sure how interesting I am going to find it. I took ethics and had to drop it because of my load and work before I became a nurse. I like the class but had trouble with the time involved. Still egotism and moral relativism were interesting in their weakness and strength... Still Soros book is well written and thoughtful it is not some pie in the sky read...
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent )- sadly for my job prospects. (Hah!)
But I hope you enjoy your class; it's a tough thing, I think, to make (academic) philosophy interesting to students who don't already have some prior investment in the subject, or who have a knack for a certain kind of abstract reasoning. It's a rare talent to be able to make palpable why the relatively abstruse problems of philosophy arise from the more practical impasses of everyday life - so take it easy on your teacher if she doesn't quite measure up ;^D
--Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
- quote
| parent )Nothing is less likely to affect your job prospects.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- reply
- quote
| parent )to wit, "your job prospects suck anyway." Which is true. As is your response, to my great, great dismay.
--Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
- quote
| parent )...if it actually bothered to come up with figures itself.
But the right wants to have it's cake and eat it as well. If your position is that "we don't do casualties", then you have no right to sit back and snipe at those who try to provide the data you refuse to.
Further, by refusing to come up with official figures, the administration is both demonstrating contempt for the value of Iraqi life (contempt that does not go unnoticed in the Middle East), and providing grounds for observers to assume that the numbers are so high as to be politically damming.
--Holographic Foam Cosmology. Improved! With bigger bubbles!
- reply
- quote
)I wouldn't release data to pro-war folks, either. The study's authors have a responsibility to protect the identities of both the surveyors and surveyed, and it would be gross negligence to release that information to persons with the, ah, penchant for forgetting anonymity shown by war advocates.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
)If they won't release data, we are left with no reason to trust them and no means to test them. They are therefore of no value in examining the situation.
--"I'm from the Guerreros, and I'm here to help...sort of."
- My way of joking is to tell the truth. It is the funniest joke in the world.- George Bernard Shaw
- reply
- quote
| parent )to identify the loss rate you need to count, not just
attack those that do.
Unless, of course, the goal is not to identify the loss
rate.
If you want to challenge the study how about doing another
--one with better methods and wider sample data and funded
by an 'acceptable political source' since that seems to be
some kind of issue.... no ? just carping ?.
Its just a model, you wouldn't want to bank on it.
- reply
- quote
| parent )but it's completely unreasonable to expect that.
No, the variant which is correct is one wonders at the absence of official figures on the subject.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )access to the underlying data was considered essential before someone's summary of, or conclusions from that data could be taken seriously. That's certainly true in the AGW world, were skeptics have repeatedly pointed out/harped on Michael Mann's unwillingness to give access to the data he used to formulate his hockey stick graph. And of course the more access is refused, the more suspicious lack of access becomes in the eyes of people who want to check, examine or fondle the data.
If the authors of the Lancet study don't want to grant access to their data, they should be prepared to accept a significant hit to their credibility, just like in any other supposedly impartial, ostensibly fact-based study.
AFA the "pro-war" distortions you seem to expect, at least one of the study's authors regularly appears at anti-war rallies. And here's a pretty rabid-looking video of Lancet's editor, Richard Horton, baying at the moon in another anti-war rally. Applying your own metric, these public positions prove that the Lancet study is significantly biased.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )They won't release the original data to anybody, pro or anti. What kind of shoddy excuse for scholarship is that?
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )made the original data available.
(so what kind of shoddy comment do you call that ?).
- reply
- quote
| parent )Maybe they promised to keep the data secret. That's not a shoddy excuse. It is basic decency.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- reply
- quote
| parent )There're plenty of ways to release data for proper peer review without endangering anyone. The researchers are making excuses, and they're undermining their own work by stonewalling.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )Has there been any attempts to make a body count other that the Lancet study? If you are operating on the assumption that the Lancet authors are lying, and are curious about the body count, then the thing to do would be to get your ass over to Iraq and do you own study. Please post a comment if you can find a more trustworthy study.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- reply
- quote
| parent )but I can tell that Rex Grossman is a terrible quarterback without suiting up.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )I could tell he sucked because he was from the CFL. But not how truly badly he sucked.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )From the NJ article:
But guess which study gets more play in LiberalLand. IBC and ICCC do actual counting and verification instead of relying on statistical estimates.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )The survey is here.
The UNDP survey attempted to find how many deaths were directly attributable to the conflict. The Lancet survey attempted to find how many persons died in excess of the number of persons who would have been expected to die during that period.
These are different things. From the UNDP survey:
The ILCS data has been derived from a question posed
to households concerning missing and dead persons
during the two years prior to the survey. Although the
date was not asked for, it is reasonable to suppose that
the vast majority of deaths due to warfare occurred
after the beginning of 2003.
The question asked in ILCS was formulated and posed
in a relatively standard way typical to large surveys
and censuses (UN 1983). The question underestimates
deaths, because households in which all members
were lost are omitted. It is therefore common within
demographic studies to use a correction for this,
based on a number of assumptions derived from
stable population theory (UN 1983). This has not been
attempted here, as it is unlikely that the assumptions
are satisfied. It is not common to make this correction
in epidemiologically oriented studies, and this was
not done in the Roberts et al. study.
(emphasis added)
To summarize -- the estimate of war-related deaths was made based on a different, more restricted question from the Lancet study. Also, the UNDP believes their number to be a lower bound, as they view their survey technique as producing a number which is biased downward.
I would remind you again, that if you rely on a conservative source you are going to get embarrassed.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )...between the UN and Lancet estimates. The National Journal isn't a conservative rag, PM, so that dog won't hunt.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )They asked different questions.
Though I concede on the NJ; thank you for the correction. As always, fresh crow is easier to eat.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )without knowing the specific procedures used and how they account for refugees and other displaced persons, I'm not sure that you can make that statement.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )I'm sorry, I really have no bone in this fight either way but do you realize how utterly ignorant that comment sounds? I'm assuming you don't realize that. Statistical estimates are the basis for almost everything we know about anything.
--This place is my vacation.
- reply
- quote
| parent )That isn't the issue. The issue is that a study was made by a prominent university and published in a prominent periodical, but when standard everyday peer review was sought, the peer reviewers were stonewalled and the primary surveyor clammed up, refusing to talk to anyone.
The JH folks are basically telling the scientific community, "trust us". That doesn't fly for any other scientific study, so why the exception here? Especially when valid questions are raised about the methodologies and processes for collecting data. What kind of scientific integrity is that?
Just as importantly, why are you defending their actions? Do you believe in scientific transparency or not? Why are you so invested in believing their data and allowing this stonewall to continue?
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )I'll gladly talk about what I think of this but we can leave that for another subthread.
You wrote that "IBC and ICCC do actual counting and verification instead of relying on statistical estimates." and that sounds like you think that statistical estimates are worse. Maybe I misread you or maybe you were unclear when you wrote that.
Do you realize that the IBC and the Lancet study measure different things? If you do, why do you compare the two directly?
BTW, if you are interested in the technical issues here's a place to start:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/10/18/DI2006101801279.html
Let me ad another question:
Do you realize that the 650 k figure is a point estimate and that there is a reported confidence interval?
--This place is my vacation.
- reply
- quote
| parent )I was just saying that IBC and ICCC are fact-based, with data obtained from multiple sources, which makes their information reliable. Their limitations are that if deaths don't get reported or if unreported dead bodies fail to make their ways to area morgues, they have no ability to count them. This is why legitimate peer-reviewed statistical studies are helpful, but because they're using statistical sampling and making large extrapolations from a fraction of the population, the methodology and supervision and data collection must be golden. The issue with the Lancet studies is that there are enough red flags to raise questions about the quality of the underlying data, and the studies' authors and its primary surveyor are stonewalling, which should be a major no-no in the scientific community. As it is, we don't know if everything is on the up and up, or if this is Belliseles 2.0 or something in between.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )Again, it may be just an issue of how you wrote things but survey research is just as fact-based as the IBC. Multiple sources may or may not make them reliable, but I think we can skip that.
Here's the issue, IMO. It seems to me (correct me if I am wrong) that you are relying on what some journalists wrote but have not really delved into the more technical aspects of this debate. One problem I have with the article you link to is that it is repeating issues that have been hashed out a long time ago. That's one reason I asked if you knew the difference between what the IBC does and what the Lancet study measured.
My other general problem is that while I accept that there may be errors in the Lancet studies in the past I have read too many attacks from conservatives that in the end were based on simply not knowing what they were talking about. This includes, among many others I can remember, Shanon Love from the Chicago Boyz website pretending she understood the statistics behind it and having to recognize she did not know how cluster sampling is carried out. When someone writes that the UN study had 10 times more participants as a proof that it was a better study that raises a red flag to me that the person saying that does not know basic stats.
On a more fundamental note, do you remember what the debate was on the first Lancet study? Again, not meant as a trick question but I am trying to make sure we are talking about the same things.
--This place is my vacation.
- reply
- quote
| parent )with the report's accuracy or validity. Regardless of the emotional content, we are talking about statistics here. I've never heard someone claim before that the fact there may be only one study of a particular phenomenon automatically makes that study reliable.
Your "get your ___ over to Iraq" comment seems more an attack on the commenter than a response to the comment.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent ). . .adapted to yet another intellectually and morally bankrupt purpose--and as such is definitely contrary to "address the comment, not the commenter."
--- reply
- quote
| parent )What's wrong with doing another survey? If you want to know the numbers, that seems to be the best solution, especially if you have reason to distrust the Lancet study.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- reply
- quote
| parent )However:
1) One doesn't have to have his own survey in hand to question the validity of the Lancet study based on one's own observations, and;
2) The "why don't you go over and do it yourself?" riff is pure chickenhawk meme-type rhetoric, and as such is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
--- reply
- quote
| parent )...supporters. From my perspective, as a guy who never supported the Iraq invasion, it's proving itself daily. The planning for the disaster we have found ourselves in was done entirely by chickenhawks. Please read some more of what David Hackworth (rip) has to say about it before just throwing that term around.
--Me: We! -- Ali
- reply
- quote
| parent )The study seems good enough for Lancet which is a pretty prestigious journal. They are still standing by it. Now if you distrust the findings, and you believe you a more honest study is necessary, then obviously the thing to do would be to go over there to Iraq and do it. (I really didn't mean Bird Dog in person, he is invaluable right where he is, as a conduit for lies and misinformation from all over the world.) There are better ways of counting corpses than droning on about how Soros spends his money.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- reply
- quote
| parent )If you're going to tell me I'm a conduit for lies and misinformation, then it's incumbent on you to either back up such claims or take it back AND apologize. As it stands right now, you crossed the line on the posting rules.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )Your parenthetical is gratuitous + personal.
This is a warning. Next time we'll have to throw some lefty meat to the crowds here.
But seriously, you're one of our few posters who lives outside the US, so I'd hate to cut off your posting.
Plz. scrupulously avoid the personal attacks especially in near future.
... Thanks to Da and others for catching this, I hadn't noticed first time round.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Mr. Catchy,
But if you google the site, there've been repeated similar offenses from this commenter. And repeated warnings.
--For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise - B. Franklin
- reply
- quote
| parent )Micky, you're a smart guy and have been here plenty long enough to know the rules. Either you're doing this intentionally or you're giving your emotions free rein. Either way, it needs to stop.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )But I don't think that precludes another warning before a second + harsher suspension, especially from a new set of mods.
...Weyland who would mind polite input from the likes of you?
Certainly not me.
Cheers.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Traveller dropped the hammer (after consultation, IIRC), with obvious regret and after repeated warnings.
--- reply
- quote
| parent )However, I'd say that drawing a line in the sand suffices here, assuming that the reaction isn't defiance.
--- reply
- quote
| parent )NT
--For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise - B. Franklin
- reply
- quote
| parent )Nothing resembles wit less than a lame slur.
--Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
- quote
| parent )Misoverentedre. Took me a minute to get it, though.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )You write: "Misoverentedre"
I think: "Is this Italian? German? Why am I so illiterate? ... ... Ohhhhhhh."
--Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
- quote
| parent )(I really didn't mean Bird Dog in person, he is invaluable right where he is, as a conduit for lies and misinformation from all over the world.)
Now it maybe a tongue and cheek comment but it sure could be taken different from where I sit. I think Bird Dog regardless of my disagreement benefits the site.. I hope for more engagement on points of contention but I would never say that he flat out lies... or purposely misinforms..
So others can decide on what they think...Their are three mods that should possibly look at this comment... If I am off base then I ask for forgiveness in advance from all parties..
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent )....I understand what you are saying Davinci, but I also understand Micky's sentiment and the phrasing made me sit up and laugh.
Ahem, yes...(BD can take care of himself...and there is a smidgen of...something to M's complaint, but let's see how this plays out).
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
- quote
| parent )some threads that have talked of the left right disconnect. Now I have to say that I in part agree with the problems with conversation around here. I mean you have to agree that a topic is an issue then agree on a least basic facts... I pose questions all the time that do not get answered. I mean if one asks someone to clarify a position or point and one does not engage IMHO it does lead one to make an assumption like the above questionable comment. Still we have seen many on the right leave for other pastures... We also have had some just not converse IMHO in a way that leads to anything of substance on topics from global Warming and Science to Iraq and how to judge it moving forward and any number of other priorities facing the country. You would almost think that we live in different ones... Still I try and maintain a position of engagement and think that if we like we can have a diary submitted as a free fire zone... once in awhile but that might lead to more alienation... Still I am with hank that we need a net positive influx and would rather the site not suffer from the problem that wings went through.. I hope that is possible and maybe we need a diary that address this issue... I mean this is sorta secondary to the topic at hand. Still BD does provide content, even if he does not defend it all the time... Still I am sympathetic to the dilemma. I work at night and post in the morning and or late at night often when others are asleep or at work..Unless they live in that Siberia of Hawaii. Then I am away when the majority write and come to topics after the fact etc... Still we have lost many on the right, I am not sure if it is that fault of the site or the inability to defend the points from the left or the position of I believe what I believe regardless of other evidence... End rant... Da..
One other note this is not a propaganda center for either side if that happens then I to will leave... I still have hopes for engagment on any number of issues... In fact IMHO the country needs people to keep talking who disagree and come to some common ground even if that is agreement that we have none... Da
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent )(I really didn't mean Bird Dog in person, he is invaluable right where he is, as a conduit for lies and misinformation from all over the world.)
Now it maybe a tongue and cheek comment but it sure could be taken different from where I sit. I think Bird Dog regardless of my disagreement benefits the site.. I hope for more engagement on points of contention but I would never say that he flat out lies... or purposely misinforms..
So others can decide on what they think...Their are three mods that should possibly look at this comment... If I am off base then I ask for forgiveness in advance from all parties..
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent )you need to know what you are talking about. Most conservative attacks I read lack that. I still remember conservative posters claiming the study was flawed because the pre-war crude mortality rates (CMR) for Iraq were lower than most European countries, blissfully ignorant that that is to be expected since Iraq is a much younger nation.
And that's just one example. There are plenty more.
--This place is my vacation.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Links to criticism from knowledgable practiotioners.
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/2578.html
--The Jingoist
- reply
- quote
| parent )If I were those researchers, I simply would not release the data to anyone else in the current political climate. My surveyors and respondents' lives would be in my hands, and I would rather have my professional reputation assaulted or destroyed than risk them.
In a world in which Donald Rumsfeld publicly thanks Joe Darby and in which a 12 year old receives death threats for his parents' decision to go on public assistance -- a world in which Pat Tillman's death is still an unresolved question -- it would be an act of vicious stupidity to release the data to anyone else.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )I sure would like to see an intelligent response to the points you made.
--Me: We! -- Ali
- reply
- quote
| parent )What's next, another debate on Schiavo?
--This place is my vacation.
- reply
- quote
)/wingnutrant
;-}
--Me: We! -- Ali
- reply
- quote
| parent )erpillar.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )conservatives won't gladly claim they don't believe.
--This place is my vacation.
- reply
- quote
| parent )but what does this have to do with setting policy?
No one's arguments for what we should do, or should have done, in Iraq, hinge on some particular level of civilian casualties. One would be too many, by one way of looking at it; by another, any number would be worth it.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
- quote
)and liberal policy-setters used the studies as a basis to advance their own political agenda. Jihadists likely used the report "findings" for their policy and recruiting purposes as well. The point is that we should all be interested in having the best information available, and relying on a study with so many apparent defects could very lead to wrong judgments.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )And you are right we need the best information available
--not the complete absence of data and a refusal to collect
any.
Its just a model, you wouldn't want to bank on it.
- reply
- quote
| parent )A) One might easily fall into your excluded middle, that is, willing to fight the war so long as it doesn't cause whatever arbitrary level of damage is "too much". I'm closer to the whatever-it-takes side, though even I wouldn't go so far as to say "any number". In any case, I'd want to see evidence that there are a lot of people that fall into the all or none extremes you're postulating.
B) The theme of whether or not the President, CIA, government or anybody in particular lied about data going in has been quite an issue to date. It appears to me that whether or not anti-war types are willing to lie, modify data or otherwise attempt to bolster their case(s) in such fashion is germane as to whether one should trust them.
--"I'm from the Guerreros, and I'm here to help...sort of."
- My way of joking is to tell the truth. It is the funniest joke in the world.- George Bernard Shaw
- reply
- quote
| parent )and I don't see why my credibility is impacted by the Lancet (possibly) falsifying data.
In regards to A, I can only say that I have seen no concern whatsoever from conservatives over civilian casualties in Iraq, beyond the usual stoic platitudes about eggs and omelettes (it's so much easier when the eggs belong to other people, isn't it?). This leads me to conclude, perhaps unfairly, that most conservatives would regard any level of casualties short of total depopulation as "acceptable".
Do you know anyone who would be likely to say "Well, I was against the war in Iraq, until I found out that only half as many civilians died as we thought, and now I'm all for it."
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
- quote
| parent )...your credibility, but it most certainly impacts that of the authors, possibly that of the sponsors, and definitely that of any argument that anchors off of it.
This leads me to conclude, perhaps unfairly, that most conservatives would regard any level of casualties short of total depopulation as "acceptable".
Leaving aside the small shift in going from "any level of casualties" to "any level of casualties short of total depopulation", I'd say you're setting up a strawman and once again relying on the fallacy of the excluded middle. If I see some level of benefit in prosecuting the war, that in no way precludes thinking that there is some cost (however large or small I might make it out to be) associated with each civilian death. A war prosecuted with fewer civilian deaths would then be worth more to me than otherwise. Also, presumably, individuals set their bar as to worth-it/not-worth-it in different places. Trav, for instance, strikes me as a fellow who would be more supportive the less casualty intensive the war was. He can correct me if I'm wrong on that.
--"I'm from the Guerreros, and I'm here to help...sort of."
- My way of joking is to tell the truth. It is the funniest joke in the world.- George Bernard Shaw
- reply
- quote
| parent )I guess I've mischaracterized the opposition. I apologize.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
- quote
| parent )