|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I've been off the board for a few hours because I was digging up some info from my friends at the Bush/Chaney campaign. I found this little tidbit...
Roy (name deleted to protect the innocent) Bellefontaine,OHIO $2,000.
When you called me for that information, you never told me you were GOING TO POST IT!!!!!!! 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Excellent. Twenty hours! Wow. That makes you really smart I guess (except for not being able to spell "differential", but I won't mention that). I've got a Master's Degree in Science. I know the subject, too. Thanks.[/white]
WOW!!!! Typo smack.....how typical....you have nothing to really combat me with...so you resort to typo smack....
Quote:
As a result of your (almost complete) esteemed education, I would expect you then to know that the mathematics of probability proves the size of the population is irrelevant. That's why it's not in the equation. Additionally, I'd assume you'd also know that increases in sample size don't increase the confidence interval equally.
First of all, Engineers do not deal in Probability mathematics...and there is good reason for that....because there is too much relying on their calculations. Someones life is not at risk when some statistician invents sabermetrics, or compultes quantum theory. You don't use a poll to determine whether or not a load bearing member will fail under certain conditions. The closest they come to to Probability is in determining what situations might this structure come in contact with. Then someone else gives them some numbers to which the engineers tack on to and deal with those numbers as absolutes. Probability Mathematics is a contraversial subject. And if you want a mathematics discussion, we can do it elsewhere. But for now I guess it has to happen here.
The only reason Probability Mathematics exists is because we don't have the ability to compute the absolute. And while that may be ok for scientific research...as it is the only way you can make an equation make sense. It doesn't prove beyond a doubt that they are correct and results can be too easily manipulated. Heck the confidence Index is a guess in its own right....
Like the saying has gone on this board....STATS ARE FOR LOSERS....And when taken as 100 percent face value...The term is absolutely correct. If explored and taken in the correct context they can be a very good tool. In the case of this poll, the numbers are absolutely worthless. There are too many assumptions being taken and the poll has been rigged to elicit a specific response. You, more than anyone, should realize that you can rig a poll to create a desired result. That is the problem with Probability Mathematics....It is used too often to create a desired result...
As is the case of this poll. For one, the question is purposely worded to elicit a predetermind response, and secondly, there are too many assumptions made as in demographic make up, number of responses...( do you honestly believe the only answers to this question are yes, no, or undecided????)etc....When speaking of a known population size there are too many variables to take into account for a true and accurate reading. And these variables were not taken into account when trying to determine a somewhat accurate Confidence Index.
I don't have the luxury of dealing with Probability mathematics. On a daily basis I deal with issues such as one letter, one single digit out of 100 to 200 pages of code could be wrong and the entire thing doesn't work. Engineers can't say: well the beam will probably hold up to the stress.
If engineers are given numbers concerning the geology of an area ( which would partly use probability mathematics)....They tack on in excess of those number towards the worst case scenario and design to those specifications as absolutes....
Heck even Einstein was against Probability Math....He once told Max Born "I am convinced that God does not roll dice"....The problem with Probability Mathematics is that too much faith is put into them. They are treated as absolutes when there is 0% probability that they are absolutes.
We have a known population size...the problem is that we are either too lazy to calculate a correct sample size, or know too far in advance that it isn't monetarily feasable to use a correct sample size. Or like in this poll you are trying to get a desired result.
Probability math has its uses...but to gage opinion is not one of them, as opinion has too many variables to calculate a proper confidence index. Now you can site all the ad agencies and such that use this on a daily basis...But if the numbers were truely accurate, we would never have seen products like "New Coke".....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217 |
Quote:
The only reason Probability Mathematics exists is because we don't have the ability to compute the absolute. And while that may be ok for scientific research...as it is the only way you can make an equation make sense. It doesn't prove beyond a doubt that they are correct and results can be too easily manipulated. Heck the confidence Index is a guess in its own right....
Like the saying has gone on this board....STATS ARE FOR LOSERS....And when taken as 100 percent face value...The term is absolutely correct. If explored and taken in the correct context they can be a very good tool. In the case of this poll, the numbers are absolutely worthless. There are too many assumptions being taken and the poll has been rigged to elicit a specific response.
That's why polls have a "margin for error". Usually between 3% and 5%. And it has nothing to do with much you have touched on. A mathmatics major can explain to you that given the margin for error,polls are relatively accurate. Unless you're suggesting that "certain special interest people were targeted" by the questionaire.
It's a very simple question that's not hard to draw conclusions on. Does the fact they refuse to honor subpoena's make it look like they're "hiding something"? Yes it does. I mean,from my understanding,one of these people WANTS to testify! But executive privalige is stopping a person who WANTS to come clean from doing so!
This White House has put in play a series of activities to give the appearance of guilt. So many feel he "should be" impeached. Me? I think they should be stopped from "stonewalling the Justice Department". They should be "forced to" comply with subpoenas. I think Congress should DEMAND they comply or charge them with "contempt of Congress".
So yes,force accountability,or take it to a level that creates the environment and charges which will make impeachment possible.Be accountable,quit stonewalling and circumventing the law,or face the consequences. Just like every other American has to do.
The poll asked how they felt,not about points of law. About their "opinion". And let's face it,when people have gone to such desperate lengths to hide the facts and the truth,to circumvent the law,what do you expect "logical" people are supposed to think?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
ahh but in the case of this poll you are wrong...because the the basis or foundation (the Confidence Index) for their sample size and margin of error has inherent flaws. They assume only three possible answers to a Question that is #1 skewed and #2 vague. And they also make assumptions upon the makeup of of the the political afiliations. So their entire foundation for creating a sample size is flawed and therefore the calculation of the sample size itself is flawed.
Lets not forget to mention it also has to deal with the people who are recording the answers to the poll. So if they call someone and ask the question...and the person says..."Impeach him for what????" Do they automatically put that person in the undecided range because they couldn't give a straight answer based upon the question???? That skews the result as well.
Now concerning the makeup....they probably used probability math to determine the makeup...within 5%...well gee...now that we compound that error into another probability function....don't you think that 5% error margin is magnified????
Look, I know how probability math works. And I know it's uses...I just don't subscribe to the notion that it is a good tool for determining opinions in a population. And I see it poorly used in this instance. This poll has too many assumptions, poorly designed questions, and too much bad math to be accurate by any means....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,217 |
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Poll says 45% think Bush should be
impeached
|
|
