For The Good Of The People Series

FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE

by

Dr. Gale A. Ragan-Reid

(November 12, 2020)

“For I am with the ee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.” Acts 18: 10, King James Version (KJV).

Greetings in the Holy Name of Jesus Yahshuah,

My sisters and brothers, when we think and when we say for the good of the people gives some folks who think about voting an uneasy feeling towards truth. In the book of John 21: 22, “Jesus said unto him, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou Me.” God’s truth bears all issues of who is chosen.

We the people obviously do not agree to disagree in false hope in lost faith for had it not been necessary to count all the votes for the good of the people, the process of counting all the votes before the people while the people watched day and night would have not begun on the first day of publicly counting votes not in the precincts but by the media. Do we need to know the truth of how the process of voting actually works in the United States of America? We lived a life of projections even predictions before the projections just like the weather forecasts: sometimes we get it more perfectly right than other times when we get it more perfectly wrong. You think to yourself, Why the bother of counting at all when we just call it by our estimates of numbers without certification?

Some folks think I only like the races with small numbers as results because it is far easier to see when one candidate wins by one vote. We beg the question, the margin of error is fundamentally if not explicitly weaker with small numbers than big numbers. Is it possible to lose by one vote counting big numbers?[“Misuse of Statistics. Importance. Statistics may be a principled means of debate with opportunities for agreement, but this is true only if the parties agree to a set of rules. Misuses of statistics violate the rules. To put it another way:

False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often long endure; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, as every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened.”

(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871), Vol. 2, 385; Wikipedia.org; Wikipedia.org, “Definition, limitations and context

One usable definition is: "Misuse of Statistics: Using numbers in such a manner that – either by intent or through ignorance or carelessness – the conclusions are unjustified or incorrect." The "numbers" include misleading graphics discussed elsewhere. The term is not commonly encountered in statistics texts and no authoritative definition is known. It is a generalization of lying with statistics which was richly described by examples from statisticians 60 years ago.

The definition confronts some problems (some are addressed by the source):

1. Statistics usually produces probabilities; conclusions are provisional

2. The provisional conclusions have errors and error rates. Commonly 5% of the provisional conclusions of significance testing are wrong

3. Statisticians are not in complete agreement on ideal methods

4. Statistical methods are based on assumptions which are seldom fully met

5. Data gathering is usually limited by ethical, practical and financial constraints.

How to lie with Statistics acknowledges that statistics can legitimately take many forms. Whether the statistics show that a product is "light and economical" or "flimsy and cheap" can be debated whatever the numbers. Some object to the substitution of statistical correctness for moral leadership (for example) as an objective. Assigning blame for misuses is often difficult because scientists, pollsters, statisticians and reporters are often employees or consultants.

An insidious misuse(?) of statistics is completed by the listener/observer/audience/juror. The supplier provides the "statistics" as numbers or graphics (or before/after photographs), allowing the consumer to draw (possibly unjustified or incorrect) conclusions. The poor state of public statistical literacy and the non-statistical nature of human intuition permits misleading without explicitly producing faulty conclusions. The definition is weak on the responsibility of the consumer of statistics.”)].

Most importantly, have you ever gone fishing in the darkness? Was Jesus your advisor standing by your side? When you pulled in your net, how many fishes did you catch? We are counting the fishes, are we not? How many do you have in your net? [Let us go to the holy word in holy gospel readings the Holy Bible (n.d.)].

We find Jesus risen from the dead showing himself to his disciples. “And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.” (John 21: 6, KJV). In reflection in Luke (5: 5-11, KJV) we find Peter met Jesus for the first time when he was still trying to catch fishes after a long night.: