On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:42:53 -0800 (PST), Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have read about a recent study on the number of > > civilian deaths during > > the last year in Iraq. The methodology seems, on > > paper, capable of > > providing at least order of magnitude accuracy (i.e. > > differentiating to > > within at least a factor of 2). It reports at least > > 100k civilian deaths > > in Iraq since the US's invasion.. My questions are: > > > > 1) Is there anything obviously wrong with their > > methodlogy? > > Yes - the methodology is extremely bad. It uses > clustering, etc.
The Slate article you link to describes clustering as a "time-honored technique for many epidemiological studies". How does this make it extremely bad? There are difficulties with using clustering but this doesn't mean it is obviously wrong which is what Dan asked. Here's The Economist's assessment of the survey: http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814 It concludes: "The study is not perfect. But then it does not claim to be. The way forward is to duplicate the Lancet study independently, and at a larger scale." Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
