Circumstantial statistics?
814446
This question would be a lot better if you had included some examples to see what you are getting at.\n\nI think statistical data is risky at best.  It makes a large body of assumptions, and those assumptions are not usually spelled out when legislators or voters (in the case of ballot propositions) look at the stats.  \n\nNow as to "circumstantial events," I am at a loss to know what you mean.  All events are circumstantial; this does not tell us what sort of events or what sort of circumstances you mean to include.  Circumstantial evidence, in law, is evidence that points one way, but could be interpreted some other way.  \n\nIt is very hard to prove a criminal case on circumstantial evidence because of the high standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt.  Most people have no such high standards when they study statistics.  If something is like 90% or 95%, then possibly you are reasonable in taking those stats seriously.  But often legislators and voters get little more than a scant majority in the figures offered, and those could be off by quite a bit.  We need to know the complete design of the survey before we can take statistics seriously, and we seldom get that much detail.\n\nAdd to this the fact that statistics are never a valid indicator, in themselves, of what is right or wrong, but only what is popular or unpopular.  Think and act independently, and vote accordingly.
49083
This may not be exactly what you are looking for but check it out: http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/
45470
http://www.math.unb.ca/~knight/BasicStat/u-test.htm\nhttp://www.lifesciences.napier.ac.uk/teaching/MB/MannWhit.html\nhttp://www.texasoft.com/winkmann.html\nhttp://www.statsdirect.com/help/nonparametric_methods/mwt.htm\nhttp://eatworms.swmed.edu/~leon/stats/utest.html
296670
The CIA does not do such things.\n\nThis does not seem to have anything to do with statistics.
461896
Wikipedia reveals all.\n\nThe third link lists online statistics textbooks.  The Statistics Homepage is especially good.
286076
What kind of statistic are you looking for?
43772
Hi! I'm a statistician and I use http://www.statsoft.com as well as cheap textbooks from Half Priced Books in my area. Both seem to help. If you have a specific question, feel free to email me. Don't know how much good I'll be because I use fancy software for my analysis, but I'll try.
1065873
Accordig to Fermi-Dirac-distribution-statistics.
248139
If you mean percentages as in survey statistics, None.\nEverything is relative to the way a question is asked, who is asked, and then how an individual percieves the question, and then whether or not the question is answered\nhonestly.All those variables make for extreme gaps in accuracy.
188021
As you can see the answers are all over the place.  I have provided a link to a website which shows statistics on a graph from the year 2001.  Although it's not the most current of information, it is a good starting point.
468863
Here's an article about it:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_elimination
408817
X = sample mean, U = theoretical mean, S = standard deviation, and N = number of data...\n\ni assume u know how to calculate X and S from above. \n\n.95 = P(1.96< (X-U)/(S/sqrt N) < 1.96)...solve for U..U will be in between to values, which means that you are 95% confident that U will lie in that range.
1180637
I was answering another similar question, and I came across a website that has a downloadable sample spreadsheet for doing statistical distributions.  Play with this and see if it helps you out.
100721
there are no such stats as far as i know
1156399
This is a good question even for a statistician.\nThe problem is your set is small and I do not know what the deviation between samples is, however the repeatability and reproducibility information can bind the window \nthrough which the third value will fall through or perhaps even remain in.  \n\nLet me know.
889683
There is, it is called Standarad Deviation, if you have a decent Scientific Calculator it shouyld show how to use it.
31132
A lot of people refuse to believe that statistics can apply to them.  If you focus on anecdotal evidence, you can ignore broader trends.  If you understand the ubiquity of probablity, you'd be less likely to engage in dangerous behaviors where the odds are agaist you (even though you might know some of the rare exceptions to the rule in your everyday life).