Dear editor,
I TELL you this and I tell you this with an abundance of confidence. If ever you have the unfortunate experience of meeting Freddie Kissoon, first he will tell you his name, but immediately after that he will boast that he is an academic. The fact is that Freddie is a very insecure man and hidden beneath his thin skin is that high school dropout. Freddie is the first academic in the world without a Phd or any original research. The evidence of Freddie’s limited academic ability or intellectual capacity can be seen in his daily gossip columns. These columns are devoid of any deep analysis supported by scientific evidence. Basically, they are hogwash, amalgamated with hormonal rants and ad hominem attacks.
I say this because since I wish to examine his Sunday’s instalment. I intentionally stated examine and not analyse, since I do not analyse trash. Essentially on the day of prayers and fasting, Freddie chose to desecrate our homes with the trashy article titled, “The Secretary-General isn’t going to let Granger dirty CARICOM.” Predictably, the research-shy “academic” used the CARICOM report as the gold standard of the election recount; but today I rather debunk Freddie’s argument using established scientific standards.
First let’s examine the term “reasonably credible” that the CARICOM scrutinising team erroneously used to describe the recount. “Reasonably credible” is a term used for research subgroup analyses to establish correlation between the subgroup and the total cohort. It is an established fact that the CARICOM scrutinising team scrutinized only 423 ballot boxes, which is the subgroup of the total of 2339 boxes. What the CARICOM scrutinising team has stated in a clumsy way, with the use of the term “reasonably credible” as it pertains to the subgroup, is that the findings of 423 ballot boxes scrutinised is reflective of the whole group, i.e., the 2339 boxes. In my opinion this is a grave error on the part of the CARICOM scrutinising team in conflating the term “reasonably credible” in an attempt to describe the recount when it is a term used in subgroup analysis. My next step is to establish what evidence informed their conclusion that the subgroup analysis is “reasonably credible.”
The key to critically appraising a piece of research is to try to retrace in your head the steps taken by the researcher, with a view to determine if the steps taken can be repeated, producing the same results. The language used in academia is whether the findings are reproducible? Implied in this argument is the need for the researcher to describe the steps taken to facilitate critical appraisal and peer review. As a result, when I read this report, I attempted to retrace the methodological steps taken by the authors. First question I asked of this report is what was the methodology used to determine the minimum number of ballot boxes needed to be scrutinised to establish correlation? Essentially, why 423 and not 523? It is established that before any subgroup analysis is undertaken, a statistician should analyse the total number along with other demographic variables to ascertain the minimum number needed to be scrutinised to confidently reflect a true representation of the total. The fact is, there is no evidence of this critical calculation in this report, yet the CARICOM scrutinising team and others like Freddie Kissoon would confidently claim that the 423 ballot boxes scrutinised are reflective of the total. Further, on reading this report, it is evident that the CARICOM scrutinising team simply turned up at the ACCC for 33 days and 423 ballot boxes just happened to be the number of ballot boxes scrutinised during that period. This is far from scientific and in my opinion the positive correlation they have alluded to is essentially a guesswork. Even further, as I continued to interrogate the report, I attempted to determine whether statistical language and calculations were within it. Such language include p-values, CI ect and are critical to determine if the findings were by chance or how confident can we be of the findings. Sadly these were not present in the report. “Reasonably credible” now appears to incredible.
Some may ask where am I heading with this. It is simple: many are viewing this report as gold standard that supersedes the CEO’s report. It is for this reason that I was forced to examine the research foundations it stands on. Sadly, there was absolutely no foundation. What evidence have they provided to convince the readers that the 18.08% is reflective of the total? None? They produced a number, stated that it is reflective and expected us to accept it as fact. Even if that correlation has been established, did they confidently argue that it was not by chance? No! Further, my critical appraisal only examined the quantitative aspect of the report. For this I am certain, the qualitative aspect would fare far worse under any forensic eye.
So Freddie Kissoon with his paltry academic ability would use as his scientific evidence persons who support the report, despite those being their personal and not professional opinions. Surely, any true academic, which Freddie is not, would have an inquisitive mind. A mind searching for answers. A mind that would not take someone’s opinion as gospel, without scrutinising the evidence themselves. Sadly, many are running around with this report in their hands, supporting it based on what they heard and not their own analysis. This for me is a sad state of affairs and is partly the reason we as a people are consistently disrespected like a herd of sheep that simply follow blindly. In my opinion, and it pains me to say this, this is the very reason a substandard CARICOM report was thrown in our laps with the instruction, FOLLOW emboldened on its cover. What makes it even more painful, is the irrefutable fact that anyone with limited experience in academia would recognise the severe limitations of the report which I have highlighted, and rightfully disregard it as gold standard. Apparently, many in red haven’t.
Finally, it is irrelevant what report Mr. Granger supports, if he supports any at all. What is paramount is that GECOM follow the constitution and support the CEO’s report. To me that is what Guyanese should focus on, as Freddie continues to clutch at straws.
Regards
Dr. Mark Devonish
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_07_2020