[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

This was way too wordy and too much scientific/lawyer talk for me... you lost me at the word: concluded.

Logic is simple subject. There are three things you must be able to comprehend:
1. Statements
2. Premises
3. Conclusions

There is no science, because no scientific principles are applied here, but lawyers do have to know this shit...and a lot more.
I don't bother proofreading, but since you insist, I will rectify that problem. So, will you now read it?

Yeah, the obvious thing to conclude is that each quarterbacks' respective receivers caught a certain percentage of passes, with Rodgers having the higher percentage. That's the only fact that the data tell you.

Saying they Rodgers is better is an inference; they are as good as the premises you use to justify them.

1. Aaron Rodgers had a higher completion percentage than Steve Young(true)
2. Having a higher completion % than someone else necessarily makes him a better player than someone else(likely not true)
Conclusion: Aaron Rodgers is better than Steve Young (when using the above premises, likely not true. You can use other premises to try and justify it though)

The truth value (true or false) of Premise 2 is not true, and for a multitude of reasons, none of which discredits the use of statistical analysis done properly. In fact, it can be disproven using statistical methods depending on how the data behaves. One can use a test of whether the means are equivalent to see if there is a statistically significant different between the two mean values(note: statistical significance does not necessarily signify significance in real life)