The sky isn't falling. A numbers based view.

Now that, Goretzu, is more irony then I ever gave you credit for.

Seriously, the days of phony inventory boxing and mis-labeling of data is gone in corporate america. The weenies who have to sign-off on the documents are too chicken to do simple things like this anymore because the penalties are so stiff and punative.

Further, after Anderson went under for looking the other way as Enron's auditor.... the independent auditing firms are real pain the backside to the corporations these days and spend lots of time poking in places where they never did before.... BECAUSE they too must sign off on the companies financials and risk prison, massive fines, and confiscation of assets if they are caught asleep at the switch.

Do companies still work hard to put the best light on their financials? Yes.. they do. I know, because I consult for a number of prominant ones in the tech sector specificly on SOX compliance and corporate best practices (its a booming consulting business these days). But I can tell you for a fact that they steer wide and clear from the kinds of shenanigans you and CosmicKat are throwing around like chew toys in this thread. There is simply too much risk to the executives personally under SOX to take silly risks like you and CK are suggesting here.

Well it's the mathmatics of collecting and interperation data IMO, but some might refer to it as a "science", however Chemistry is a "science", but that doesn't mean making a mess in the kitchen sink with random stuff you found in your cupboards is therefore "science" or "scientific".

If that's the case then you know fine well your use of that legislation is also misleading in this context.

But you do show a fine example of how you can stick to the letter of the Law, whilst presenting a thoroughly misleading outlook to those that don't know better.

I don't think anyone is saying companies think of a number and add it to their offical numbers, but then they don't have to do anything that daft in the first place, as you seem to suggest you already know.

Entire industries are based on statistics as core to their business. Take for instance the insurance and risk management industry as just one example... where actuarial science is exactly what they call it. A statistical science accepted world wide.

If you want to go all pissant over content in the thread that is one thing... but to claim that statistics is not science and is not a scientific embodiments of mathematics is just crazy.

LOL

Some people can walk and chew gum at the same time.

And your disappointment is self-inflicted IMO.

Entire industries are based on homopathy and losing weight.

Non sequitur. It's one of your "tells" in the forum.

And "whole industries" being based upon something makes them a "science" is what exactly?

Entire industries are based on homopathy and losing weight. Also statistical risk analysis didn't do much for the frankly insane invesement behaviour that resutled in the credit crunch. I rest my case.

You took it out of context... it's context was to demonstrate statistics is broadly accepted as science and it's an invalidation to your claim that statistics is not science... which I see you finally walked back. Good boy.

You dug the hole.. I just helped you shovel the dirt back into it so we can move on.