 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
All 5 books, Edward Tufte paperback $180
All 5 clothbound books, autographed by ET $280
Visual Display of Quantitative Information
Envisioning Information
Visual Explanations
Beautiful Evidence
Seeing With Fresh Eyes
catalog + shopping cart
|
Edward Tufte e-books Immediate download to any computer: Visual and Statistical Thinking $5
The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint $5
Seeing Around + Feynman Diagrams $5
Data Analysis for Politics and Policy $9
catalog + shopping cart
New ET Book
Seeing with Fresh Eyes:
catalog + shopping cart
Meaning, Space, Data, Truth |
Analyzing/Presenting Data/Information All 5 books + 4-hour ET online video course, keyed to the 5 books. |
A quick question about the Table of Casualties on page 19 of "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint": data are presented from 1629 to 1636 and from 1647 to 1660. What about 1637 to 1646, or am I missing something?
-- Claiborne Booker (email)
Here's what I can find in the first edition of John Graunt, National and Political Observations mentioned in a following index, and made upon the Bills of Mortality. With reference to the Government, Religion, Trade, Growth, Ayre, Diseases, and the several Changes of the said City (London, 1662).
Several other tables contain some data for the missing years, with breakouts by gender and geographic unit. Lacking in these tables are details about the causes of death, other than the plague.
Graunt concludes his set of tables with these notes:
 |
 |
 |
And what is the meaning of the statement "That the 10 years between 1636 and 1647 are omitted as containing nothing Extraordinary, and as not consistent with the Incapacity of a Sheet"? Was the foldout page used for printing the table too small to show the 10 missing years?!
Thanks to our Kindly Contributor Claiborne Booker (who also provided good advice, which I followed, about visiting Santa Fe last week).
-- Edward Tufte
The data from the London Bills of Mortality are famous for inducing errors in their users. For a graphic example see: A Small Hurrah for the Black Death. Chance,15(4), 58-60, 2002. that shows (i) how Arbuthnot erroneously copied one number (1704) in his 1710 article using the data to prove the existence of God, and (ii) his missing the error strongly suggests he could never have graphed them. From this we conclude that graphs were not yet invented (or at least not widely known). That article has the complete correct data string.
-- howard wainer (email)
 |
|
|||||