Post by Venter on May 4, 2013 13:09:28 GMT -5
I was reading a Scientific American article about Gun Science .
There were a lot of references to studies and statistics, of course.
While reading the Comments by the Readers, this little gem appeared.
Its simplicity just blew me away, and it actually made me laugh...
There were a lot of references to studies and statistics, of course.
While reading the Comments by the Readers, this little gem appeared.
Its simplicity just blew me away, and it actually made me laugh...
There is a (non-gun) example I like to give my classes to illustrate the importance of data interpretation:
During WWII the Army Air Corps studied aircraft damage to determine where to best armor the planes
(since it wasn’t the tank corps they couldn’t just armor everything!).
So they studied the bullet-hole density on planes returning from missions.
They found that the wings and aft fuselage had the highest bullet hole densities.
The engine & cockpit areas – as well as the elevator/tail area had the lowest density of bullet holes.
So they increased the ‘hardness’ of the area around the engine, cockpit and tail/elevator – but not the wings and aft fuselage.
WTF?
Well, you see, the planes they studies were the ones that made it BACK to base…
and in a dog fight the whole surface of the plane has about equal chance of being hit.
So clearly bullet holes in the wings and after fuselage weren’t as serious as the engine, cockpit and tail/elevator section.
Also it turns out planes can’t fly well with a dead engine or a dead pilot –
nor with damaged elevators (they can limp back without ailerons or even a rudder but not without elevators).
So the moral of the story is you have to think about the data to know what it is really telling you.
During WWII the Army Air Corps studied aircraft damage to determine where to best armor the planes
(since it wasn’t the tank corps they couldn’t just armor everything!).
So they studied the bullet-hole density on planes returning from missions.
They found that the wings and aft fuselage had the highest bullet hole densities.
The engine & cockpit areas – as well as the elevator/tail area had the lowest density of bullet holes.
So they increased the ‘hardness’ of the area around the engine, cockpit and tail/elevator – but not the wings and aft fuselage.
WTF?
Well, you see, the planes they studies were the ones that made it BACK to base…
and in a dog fight the whole surface of the plane has about equal chance of being hit.
So clearly bullet holes in the wings and after fuselage weren’t as serious as the engine, cockpit and tail/elevator section.
Also it turns out planes can’t fly well with a dead engine or a dead pilot –
nor with damaged elevators (they can limp back without ailerons or even a rudder but not without elevators).
So the moral of the story is you have to think about the data to know what it is really telling you.