Sure, and I certainly think that those who go in the ring and fight have a lot more right to claim victory compared to those who sit on the sidelines.Others think that because they do argue, they are right. — Banno
It does not follow in what way? It does not follow logically, that's true. But I made an inductive statement there. I said that having the support of the people is evidence that the person in question has divine right. It's not sufficient for that to be the case, but it is evidence. I mean, could someone have divine right to rule and have no one's support? Then in what sense would he even have right to rule? :sis a non sequitur, since it does not follow from the support of the mob that one has divine right. — Banno
I haven't. I merely pointed out, that if you are going to say it's a non-sequitur - that one doesn't follow from the other - you're probably assuming a logical necessity between the two. Of course there is no logical necessity there. But that doesn't mean it's not evidence. First of all, historically it is evidence. And secondly, we wouldn't expect someone who has divine right to rule not to have the support of the people (in most instances at least).Then you shifted your ground from evidence to necessity. — Banno
Actually I merely pointed to Trump to illustrate that you have this attitude to everyone who disagrees with you on politics. It's not a very productive attitude, since you can't even have a conversation with people who disagree with you that way.Perhaps this goes to explaining your infatuation; you want to be like him.
That probably should incite pathos, but instead i find myself disgusted. — Banno
Does this assume a particular mathematical model? What if those assumptions are wrong? There's a very important effect that comes with size, especially in a country like the US. Maybe the probability is indeed 2.53% or whatever if you're dealing with physical atoms, obeying physical laws, not with people. The fact that you - and your statistics - would claim that the probability of error is the same in both cases is a fault with the methodological/statistical method applied. Unquestionably so.Population size doesn't really matter, except when the sample size is greater than 5% of the population (so in this case). See here. — Michael
Does this assume a particular mathematical model? What if those assumptions are wrong? There's a very important effect that comes with size, especially in a country like the US. Maybe the probability is indeed 2.53% or whatever if you're dealing with physical atoms, obeying physical laws, not with people. The fact that you - and your statistics - would claim that the probability of error is the same in both cases is a fault with the methodology. Unquestionably so. — Agustino
This is an assumption. Read about what being random means mathematically.It is possible that pollsters sample 1,013 voters who happen to vote for Bush when in fact the population is evenly split between Bush and Kerry, but this is extremely unlikely (p = 2−1013 ≈ 1.1 × 10−305) given that the sample is random.
However, the margin of error only accounts for random sampling error, so it is blind to systematic errors that may be introduced by non-response or by interactions between the survey and subjects' memory, motivation, communication and knowledge
Looking at these different results, you can see that larger sample sizes decrease the margin of error, but after a certain point, you have a diminished return. Each time you survey one more person, the cost of your survey increases, and going from a sample size of, say, 1,500 to a sample size of 2,000 decreases your margin of error by only 0.34% (one third of one percent!) — from 0.0253 to 0.0219. The extra cost and trouble to get that small decrease in the margin of error may not be worthwhile. Bigger isn’t always that much better!
To name a few.Which assumptions are wrong? — Michael
On the grounds that the US is very diverse geographically speaking, and it's impossible to quantify this diversity in 1500 people. 50 states. That's 30 people per state assuming they were polled equally, which again wouldn't be representative since some states have more people. Those 30 have to be further divided into categories, blacks, whites, religious, non-religious, etc. When we get down to it, some categories will have very few people. We're going to say how blacks in Arizona vote based on two "randomly" polled black people. Give me a break... That's not representative.On what grounds do you justify such an assertion? — Michael
On the grounds that the US is very diverse geographically speaking, and it's impossible to quantify this diversity in 1500 people. 50 states. That's 30 people per state assuming they were polled equally, which again wouldn't be representative since some states have more people. Those 30 have to be further divided into categories, blacks, whites, religious, non-religious, etc. When we get down to it, some categories will have very few people. We're going to say how blacks in Arizona vote based on two "randomly" polled black people. Give me a break... That's not representative. — Agustino
We're going to say how blacks in Arizona vote based on two "randomly" polled black people. Give me a break... That's not representative. — Agustino
Oh yeah!! if we were talking just 1500 random black people from Arizona, sure! They'd be representative - of black people from Arizona.No, because a sample size of 2 is terrible. A sample size of 1,500 people chosen at random from all black people in Arizona would be representative of how blacks in Arizona vote. — Michael
:s nope, that's no explanation at all. That's just parroting the theory to me, not showing that you've actually thought about it. You'll start thinking about it when you start thinking about all the things that can go wrong, and realise how uncertain it really is.I linked you to an article on the subject. That's the explanation. — Michael
Wrong. There's a lot of diversity in Americans. There's black non-religious Americans, black religious Americans, black homosexuals, black lesbians, etc. you're telling me you'll capture each of those groups accurately within 1,500 people total? :sYes, and if we take 1,500 random Americans then that would be representative of Americans. — Michael
Wrong. There's a lot of diversity in Americans. There's black non-religious Americans, black religious Americans, black homosexuals, black lesbians, etc. you're telling me you'll capture each of those groups accurately within 1,500 people total? — Agustino
Yes, that's why unfortunately I think you'd make a not so good decision maker because you trust the "experts" quite blindly. I'm an engineer by profession. I've been trained not to trust any expert whatsoever unless I verify for myself and think through their assumptions.The expert statisticians are the one's who actually have the training and knowledge to determine these things. I'm showing you their results. — Michael
And that presumes that the 10% black out of the 1500 - meaning 150 people - are representative of the black population in the whole country. That's false. Blacks in Minnesota will probably be different than blacks in DC. And you're not adequately going to quantify that.Yes. If 10% of the population are black and 5% lesbian and 50% religious then a random sample size of 1,500 is likely to also have 10% black, 5% lesbian, and 50% religious, etc. Hence why a random sample size of 1,500 is representative. — Michael
And that presumes that the 10% black out of the 1500 - meaning 150 people - are representative of the black population in the whole country. That's false. Blacks in Minnesota will probably be different than blacks in DC. And you're not adequately going to quantify that. — Agustino
No, it's not that unlikely, because that assumes the whites (to pick an example), etc. are randomly distributed through the cities, geographical regions of US, and so forth.Of course, as the article I linked to said, "it is possible that pollsters sample 1,013 voters who happen to vote for Bush when in fact the population is evenly split between Bush and Kerry", but "this is extremely unlikely (p = 2−1013 ≈ 1.1 × 10−305) given that the sample is random". — Michael
Right, so about 8 black people will be taken as representative for all blacks in Minnesota, and all blacks in DC :sAnd if 5% of blacks are in Minnesota and 5% are in DC then due to the random sampling it is likely that 5% of the blacks in the sample are from Minnesota and 5% are from DC. — Michael
Everyone should be skeptical of experts, not just Republicans. To me, it's more amazing how easily people bow their heads to experts once the experts perform some mathematical magic tricks that they don't understand ;) Much like witch doctors did 2000 years ago.What is it with Republicans and experts?
Next you're going to be a climate change denier. — Michael
Everyone should be skeptical of experts, not just Republicans. To me, it's more amazing how easily people bow their heads to experts once the experts perform some mathematical magic tricks that they don't understand ;) Much like witch doctors did 2000 years ago. — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.