Hello world!, David Kane, Pro Bono Statistics

August 12, 2007

While I have been contemplating filling a much needed void in the blogosphere with my own humble contribution, the immediate trigger for this blog is a set of threads in Tim Lambert’s blog, Deltoid: 1, 2, 3.

Those three threads discuss a paper by David Kane, in which he purports to prove that there is a mathematical contradiction in the 2004 paper by Roberts et al. in the Lancet discussing mortality in Iraq before and after the 2003 US-British invasion.

There are apparently a few scientists among the readers and the commenters of Deltoid, and they proceeded to address Kane’s paper. Most of the commenters consider Roberts et al. credible and were critical of Kane’s paper. Kane’s paper is weak on its substance (namely, Kane thinks that having a sample point with very high mortality – Fallujah – indicates that the mean mortality may be very low), and so it is only natural to try to address this weakness.

The problem is that Kane had what he presented as a mathematical argument proving his point, so he could claim that what seemed to his critics as a weakness of substance is nothing but a failure of their own intuition. In his first few responses in the comments he would even claim that his critics’ position is equivalent to stating that 2+2=5.

However, Kane’s mathematics are even weaker than his substance. This may seem surprising, since his substance seems to be wholly without merit. However, while his substantantive claim makes grammatical sense, his math does not – it is a complete mess. His entire mathematical argument is jibberish.

My attempts to make this point (commenting under the name “Sortition”), stating exactly why he does not make sense, never got any substantive responses from Kane. He was apparently honestly mistaken and truly believed that his arguements were correct. It seems that he gradually began to understand that his thinking may be not quite rigorous, but was unwilling to follow through and withdraw his paper and retract his conclusions until further consideration of his arguments.

This was only to be expected. Kane is ideologically committed to his conclusions, and has a personal stake to boot.

The more surprising thing was that I found it hard to get any attention from commenters who were critical of Kane. They were apparently as unaware as Kane was that Kane’s mathematical argument was entirely false, and my claims that it was were not considered credible. In my frustration, I wrote to Tim Lambert, making my point in an e-mail, and suggested that a professional statistician could make a valuable contribution to the issue. I got no response.

This called for radical action – and Pro Bono Statistics is the outcome.

In the following posts I hope to deal with many issues. One would be to point, once again, where Kane goes terribly wrong. More generally I intend to deal with statistics, as a theory, and as applied to real world issues. Even more generally, I intend to deal with other things that I think need dealing with but are not being dealt with satisfactorily, either in the mass media, or in blogs.


5 Responses to “Hello world!, David Kane, Pro Bono Statistics”

  1. […] 19th, 2007 Referring back to the seminal post of this blog, this post is aimed at pointing out where Kane’s analysis goes wrong. I have tried to make […]

  2. David Kane Says:

    Excellent stuff! And welcome to the blogosphere. Open-minded back-and-forth is precisely what we need more of. I look forward to future posts.

  3. yoramgat Says:

    Thanks, David Kane.

  4. Bruce Sharp Says:


    Nice to see your blog. As one of the non-scientist participants in the Deltoid thread, let me assure you that I appreciate your comments, both here and at Deltoid. I’m sure others do, too. I’m not capable of understanding most of the math, and as a result, I wouldn’t presume to know (at the outset) whose interpretation is correct. Still, your analysis seems well-founded, and I can’t say the same thing about the Kane’s paper. I have a very, very hard time accepting a model that presupposes the existence of clusters with a *negative* crude death rate.


  5. yoramgat Says:


    Thanks for stopping by and for the encouragement.

    I was definitely frustrated that I was not considered credible (which, as I wrote, was the immediate trigger for starting this blog), but I am not upset at Deltoid readers – I see this experience as a demonstration of the dynamics of the economy of attention.

    I mean to post more on this issue soon, but the bottom line is that it is inherently difficult to know who to pay attention to. Ignoring a comment making a seemingly extreme claim may very well be the rational thing to do. How can one be upset at someone else when that someone is making a perfectly rational choice?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s