Like Doug, I don't get this, Sabri. What is the problem with using some (but not all) government statistics as a half-bad/half good way of understanding what's going on, in conjunction with other information and reasoning?
There seems to be a spectrum of positions on this debate. Which do you fit?
(1) we can reject all statistics, even as a part of a more complete analysis;
(2) we can reject all government statistics;
(3) we can accept some government statistics, suitably "massaged";
(4) we can accept some government statistics, but treat them critically;
(5) we can accept most government statistics, as a good estimate of what's going on in the phenomenal world;
(6) we can accept all government statistics as a good estimate of what's going on in the phenomenal world.
Perhaps there's a 7th position: we can accept all those statistics (government-produced or otherwise) that reinforce our pre-determined political position and rect all those which conflict with that position.
BTW, I fit under #3 or #4.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Sabri Oncu
To: PEN-L
Sent: 10/7/2002 6:12 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:31020] Re: employment
I said:
> Maybe I am just a dreamer, but I am not the only one!
After reading Jim's and Doug's comments, I came to the conclusion
that I am the only one.
This is sad, very sad.
Not best,
Sabri
