Posted by walter on July 4, 2009, 11:05:40, in reply to ""What is your explanation of the discrepancy""
“But it is a definitive tally of the deaths that have been reported, unless you can show that it isn't.”
Raoul, what IBC is can not, logically, depend on what I can or can’t show.
I might as well say:
“With usually only 20 sources, IBC is an undercount of the deaths that have been reported, unless you can show that it isn't.”.
On the subject of bluster, I kind of let you away with this:
“Since you're clearly not interested in facts, logic or empirical evidence, I see little point reprising.”
You haven’t presented any facts or empirical evidence, and by “logic” you seem to mean denouncing as illogical everyone who can’t “see” your (clearly flawed, see above) logic. All the bluster has come from you.
I’m happy to leave it there after your presumed reply. Here’s where I think we are:
The extent to which the restricted sources used by IBC reflects the spread of reports is unclear. Your assertion that doubters have to come up with evidence contributes nothing, merely an attempt to dismiss criticism by transferring the onus. And even if I did this, the media would still report IBC the same way, wouldn’t they?
You are confident it reflects most reported deaths - that’s fine, though you give no justification.
Given the 20 sources issue, IBC’s “comprehensive” seems an exaggeration. It would have more credibility if they admitted it and gave your explanation – they at least would be in a better position to judge what sources were enough.
Walter
Message Thread:
« Back to thread