On Feb 9, 9:15 pm, "James Arthur" <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 8, 11:17 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Feb 8, 11:21 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net
wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070207/cm_rcp/bad_researc...

Think that'll throw any fat onto the fire? >:-

The reporter seems to be arguing that the survey shows that the Bush
administration is only slightly pregnant.

Naw, the editorial's just pointing out that reporters are either
liars, or, more likely, just clueless. And that The People then believe
The Nonsense--since it came from a supposed authority figure-- and treat
it as Fact.

The reporters aren't clueless. The survey just repeats what a number of
people have been saying for a few years now - Dubbya and his clueless crew
of neocons don't know what they are talking about, and don't believe
anybody else does either, so they feel free to gnore authorative advice
and go shopping for advice that they like.

The reporters aren't clueless.

On Feb 11, 6:21 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Feb 11, 7:22 pm, "James Arthur" <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
But it didn't say what they wanted it to say. So they said it
anyhow.

The survey said what everybody expected.

The point is that the survey can't validly say anything; no
conclusions about the general population are possible.

To say
otherwise misrepresents the survey.

Otherwise, one could conclude as validly that "Only 0.7 percent of
scientists polled felt pressured to change their reports."

And that's not a particularly noteworthy number--one could easily
imagine a 0.7 percent kook rate, even amongst this august assemblage
of professional prognosticators.

The survey said what everybody expected. The commentator quote in the
original post carped about the coverage, and accused the people who
published the survey of putting too much faith in the data from 17% of
the respondents - rather like Spiro Agnew claiing that the "silent
majority" was on his side.

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message

news:1171246894.998914.46810@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The survey said what everybody expected. The commentator quote in the
original post carped about the coverage, and accused the people who
published the survey of putting too much faith in the data from 17% of
the respondents - rather like Spiro Agnew claiing that the "silent
majority" was on his side.

I remember when surveys said that 4 out of 5 doctors claimed that Camels
were the smoothest smokes.

On Feb 12, 8:55 pm, "James Arthur" <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Otherwise, one could conclude as validly that "Only 0.7 percent of
scientists polled felt pressured to change their reports."

And that's not a particularly noteworthy number--one could easily
imagine a 0.7 percent kook rate, even amongst this august assemblage
of professional prognosticators.

Here we have it. Your imagination in full flight, totally unsupported
by any shred of fact.

On Feb 13, 12:48 pm, "Homer J Simpson" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message

The survey said what everybody expected. The commentator quote in the
original post carped about the coverage, and accused the people who
published the survey of putting too much faith in the data from 17% of
the respondents - rather like Spiro Agnew claiing that the "silent
majority" was on his side.

I remember when surveys said that 4 out of 5 doctors claimed that Camels
were the smoothest smokes.

At least in the commericals of old I saw, the ads said "4 out of 5
surveyed, xxxx." ("Smokers prefer," etc.) The gag was to hand out
your product free, just upstream of the pollster. Friends in dental
school commented that toothpaste companies did the same to them:

On Feb 13, 1:26 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Feb 12, 8:55 pm, "James Arthur" <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Otherwise, one could conclude as validly that "Only 0.7 percent of
scientists polled felt pressured to change their reports."

And that's not a particularly noteworthy number--one could easily
imagine a 0.7 percent kook rate, even amongst this august assemblage
of professional prognosticators.

Here we have it. Your imagination in full flight, totally unsupported
by any shred of fact.

Here's your factual basis: only 12 scientists out of the 1,630
surveyed reported actually, personally experiencing pressure to change
their reports.[1] 12 / 1,630 = 0.74%

I didn't say this was valid, I said this conclusion could've been
extrapolated and reported--equally erroneously--using this kind of
faulty reasoning.

[1] We'll ignore the ambiguous nature and questionable significance of
the question itself for now.

On Feb 13, 12:48 pm, "Homer J Simpson" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message

news:1171246894.998914.46810@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The survey said what everybody expected. The commentator quote in the
original post carped about the coverage, and accused the people who
published the survey of putting too much faith in the data from 17% of
the respondents - rather like Spiro Agnew claiing that the "silent
majority" was on his side.

I remember when surveys said that 4 out of 5 doctors claimed that Camels
were the smoothest smokes.

At least in the commericals of old I saw, the ads said "4 out of 5
surveyed, xxxx." ("Smokers prefer," etc.) The gag was to hand out
your product free, just upstream of the pollster. Friends in dental
school commented that toothpaste companies did the same to them:

"Are you going to use that (free sample of) toothpaste yourself?"
"Yes?, Oh, what brand is that you have there?"

I don't know why Bill doesn't get this. You simply can't make the
generalizations reported of the are-scientists-being-pressured survey
from their sample. These errors are objective fact, not subjective
judgement. That's not politics, just math.

Honestly Bill, I'm flabbergasted that you'd continue to argue
otherwise.

On Feb 13, 12:48 pm, "Homer J Simpson" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message

news:1171246894.998914.46810@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The survey said what everybody expected. The commentator quote in the
original post carped about the coverage, and accused the people who
published the survey of putting too much faith in the data from 17% of
the respondents - rather like Spiro Agnew claiing that the "silent
majority" was on his side.

I remember when surveys said that 4 out of 5 doctors claimed that Camels
were the smoothest smokes.

At least in the commericals of old I saw, the ads said "4 out of 5
surveyed, xxxx." ("Smokers prefer," etc.) The gag was to hand out
your product free, just upstream of the pollster. Friends in dental
school commented that toothpaste companies did the same to them:

"Are you going to use that (free sample of) toothpaste yourself?"
"Yes?, Oh, what brand is that you have there?"

I don't know why Bill doesn't get this. You simply can't make the
generalizations reported of the are-scientists-being-pressured survey
from their sample. These errors are objective fact, not subjective
judgement. That's not politics, just math.

Honestly Bill, I'm flabbergasted that you'd continue to argue
otherwise.

Regards,
James Arthur

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:16:16 -0800, James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:48 pm, "Homer J Simpson" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message

The survey said what everybody expected. The commentator quote in the
original post carped about the coverage, and accused the people who
published the survey of putting too much faith in the data from 17% of
the respondents - rather like Spiro Agnew claiing that the "silent
majority" was on his side.

I remember when surveys said that 4 out of 5 doctors claimed that Camels
were the smoothest smokes.

At least in the commericals of old I saw, the ads said "4 out of 5
surveyed, xxxx." ("Smokers prefer," etc.) The gag was to hand out
your product free, just upstream of the pollster. Friends in dental
school commented that toothpaste companies did the same to them:

Four out of five doctors prefer Camels - the rest prefer girls.

On Feb 13, 5:46 pm, "Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie"
eatmysho...@doubleclick.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:16:16 -0800, James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:48 pm, "Homer J Simpson" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message

The survey said what everybody expected. The commentator quote in the
original post carped about the coverage, and accused the people who
published the survey of putting too much faith in the data from 17% of
the respondents - rather like Spiro Agnew claiing that the "silent
majority" was on his side.

I remember when surveys said that 4 out of 5 doctors claimed that Camels
were the smoothest smokes.

At least in the commericals of old I saw, the ads said "4 out of 5
surveyed, xxxx." ("Smokers prefer," etc.) The gag was to hand out
your product free, just upstream of the pollster. Friends in dental
school commented that toothpaste companies did the same to them:

Four out of five doctors prefer Camels - the rest prefer girls. ;-)

In fairness to the doctors you've got to admit: camels do have an
impish charm