Mckilla

How can you honestly believe that an observational data set is the same as data gained from an experiment? The latter can determine causation, the former can only determine a correlation.

And how the hell did you come up with the statement that statistics are all around proving or disproving hypothesis'. Tell me, the 5 yearly census that the government do, tell me exactly how that's aiming to prove or disprove hypothesis'. It's not. The aim is simply data collection not to prove a hypothesis.

I also told you other departments do the tests too. I honestly wish you would read the words I am typing because you really don't seem to get anything I've said. Statistic students (plus the other students) may not be entirely representative of the entire student population but every survey will have sample bias.

Dear god did you just imply I know nothing about science? Are you barking kidding me? I can't even comprehend how you came up with that conclusion.

I already told you, if you can't do census level studies (in case you don't know what that means, it means studying every single individual), smaller groups are the only way to make a representation of a larger populous.

You realise I simply said it is my opinion that those who find sex the center of their lives are sad. I never said they don't have the right to do that. It has no effect on me so I don't care. I just strongly believe there's much more to life than sex, and if people can't understand that, then they're missing out. I'm not being stubborn on the issue at all.

Lastly I'm not a damn guy, I thought my answers actually made this clear, but I'm in fact a woman, and of course I'd care if I couldn't have sex again. Doesn't make it my whole life.

'sex is life'? Interesting concept. What a fascinating life you must lead if sex consumes your every moment.

To be honest, I find it sad that people don't understand that there is more to life that having sex.

Maybe I'm taking you a bit too literally but still. I don't regret anything. I wouldn't change anything.

I fail to see exactly how the american troops are "dieing for their country" when their country wasn't and hasn't been invaded and thus needing to be defended thus dieing for their country.
You got attacked a couple times and a few thousand people died. How exactly is that worth sending people to die or end up amputees, or scarred for life. Seems ironic really. It clearly makes things worse. First some people died then you send people to die. Clever. Really clever.

'We got attacked, poor us, now we will send out more people to die with the facade(sp?) of trying to prevent being attacked again.' Yeah, that makes sense

Use the line "die for their country" again, expect to be laughed at.

... ok firstly there's a difference between observing a naturally occurring event and recording it, and manipulating participants to find out what happens.

There's a difference between statistic that's gathered from recording height and weight amongst 10 year olds, and an experiment where people are trialling a drug. The first is observational, the second is manipulation by the person gathering the information.

And if you know anything about statistics, you should know that a census type sample size is always going to be impossible and that a smaller sample size can be representative of a larger population as long as certain criteria stay consistent (such as all people who take the test are at university and then the results are only representative for uni students). For example The stats department asks all their student to take a test during tutorial time, one person goes out of the class at a time, fills the form in, then another person does it. I believe some other departments do the same test. There's more stuff they do to ensure it's a representative sample but to be honest it was 2 years ago now and I forget.