- #1
Solid Snake
- 26
- 0
First, sorry if this is in the wrong section. This could span many subjects.
I was pondering on how reliable statistics in science are. My mother's best friend just had a baby naturally at 45 years old. I also know 3 other women who have had babies naturally after 40 (specifically 2 of them at 44, and the other at 45). Yet when I read up on the statistics about how possible it is to have babies after 40 (especially at the mid-40s) it would seem almost impossible that I know 3 women who have naturally had babies (especially since they're all over 44). This makes me think that such statistics are unreliable. This has to be true in medicine and biology since it is difficult to know things about the body with such precision. I can imagine in other parts of science, the same applies, though in physics it's probably less so.
So how reliable are statistics in science? In biology?? With the human body?? In geology? Cosmology? etc
EDIT: Also I'd add about those stats about women being able to naturally make babies in their early-to-mid 40s, there are so many ranges that differ. For example I read one that stated how it's only a 1% chance at 44, when other said its a 30%, and it ranges from the fathers age (the younger the father the better). Yet other statistics say the fathers age is irrelevant. This makes me believe that there exists some faults in certain subjects in scientific statistics.
I was pondering on how reliable statistics in science are. My mother's best friend just had a baby naturally at 45 years old. I also know 3 other women who have had babies naturally after 40 (specifically 2 of them at 44, and the other at 45). Yet when I read up on the statistics about how possible it is to have babies after 40 (especially at the mid-40s) it would seem almost impossible that I know 3 women who have naturally had babies (especially since they're all over 44). This makes me think that such statistics are unreliable. This has to be true in medicine and biology since it is difficult to know things about the body with such precision. I can imagine in other parts of science, the same applies, though in physics it's probably less so.
So how reliable are statistics in science? In biology?? With the human body?? In geology? Cosmology? etc
EDIT: Also I'd add about those stats about women being able to naturally make babies in their early-to-mid 40s, there are so many ranges that differ. For example I read one that stated how it's only a 1% chance at 44, when other said its a 30%, and it ranges from the fathers age (the younger the father the better). Yet other statistics say the fathers age is irrelevant. This makes me believe that there exists some faults in certain subjects in scientific statistics.
Last edited: