U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:31:30 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

Where's your poll, now that you mention it?

Oh, that's right, you don't have one.

http://www.yougov.com/yougov_website...I030101018_2.p
df

I think you owe me an apology for calling me a liar.

Okay, I'm sorry for being suspicious of this poll that you never quoted
before.

Apology accepted.

Now, if you'd just quote something current, instead of the two month old
one...

Unfortunately YouGov don't have a more recent one. I have to take as
I find.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:54:09 -0400, Leslie Swartz wrote:
Man on the street interviews conducted by a news organization, 8-10 July, in
Baghdad . . .

YouGov is an opinion polling organisation.

Somewhat problematic methodology, generalizability-wise.

Because they used street polling? Or because it was in Baghdad?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:52:24 -0400, Leslie Swartz wrote:
Hmmm . . .

The website of the for-profit "YouGov" site is a little "iffy" about
how/what they do.

In what sense? They are an opinion polling organisation, mainly know
for conducting Internet-based polls in the UK. What's iffy about
that?

The impression one is left with is that they "commissioned" a news
organization to do "man on the street" interviews back in 8-10 July.

"Why" "are" "you" "quoting" "every" "other" "word"?

And your "interpretations" are somewhat a stretch in many of the cases you
cite, even if the results were reliable for the limited sub-sub-sample. . .

That's right, ignore any evidence that contradicts your preconceived
notions.

(how on earth do you convert a 9% "rather live under Saddam" result into a
"1/2 think the Americans are as bad as Saddam?")

I don't, it's not the 9% figure that counts, it's the 47%: the relevant part of the poll was:

If you had to choose would you rather live under Saddam or the
Americans:

Saddam 9
No preference 47
Americans 29
Not stated 15


If 47% have no preference between the two, then the two choices must
be as good (or bad) as each other.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

Alan Lothian wrote:

:In article , Leslie Swartz
wrote:
:
: "Absence of Evidence" = "Evidence of Absence?"
:
: Since when?
:
:Since the beginnings of logical thought.

Wrong. One of the underpinnings of logical thought is that you CANNOT
prove a negative.

:One reason why I am reasonably
:certain there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden is the utter
:absence of evidence for their presence. Which I take, pro tem, as
:"evidence of absence". Not *proof* of absence, mind you, but it will do
:for the moment. Carl Sagan should never have come out with that one.

So one assumes you also do not believe in neutrinos, tachyons, the sun
during the evening, or any other number of outre and fantastic
concepts?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
These statistics aren't the most important. More important, IMO,
are opinion polls of US support for the occupation of iraq.

snort

From http://www.greenleft.org.au/current/547p14.htm:
A Detroit News poll, published on July 23, found that 48% of voters
believe the White House misled the US people about the need to
invade Iraq, while 47% didn't believe they were misled. Seventy-one
per cent were concerned that the US occupation of Iraq would be
"expensive, long and deadly".

Buying a house is enormously expensive, comes with unique &
substantial risk and is only maintained with continuous outlays.
Yes, I'm concerned that the occupation will be "expensive, long
and deadly.

I own my home.
I support the occupation.


Perhaps I should have simply asked "So?"

In article , Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Alan Lothian wrote:

:In article , Leslie Swartz
wrote:
:
: "Absence of Evidence" = "Evidence of Absence?"
:
: Since when?
:
:Since the beginnings of logical thought.

Wrong. One of the underpinnings of logical thought is that you CANNOT
prove a negative.

You will note that I quite specifically pointed out that absence of
evidence does not amount to proof. It is exactly what it says it is:
absence of evidence.
[FX: stropping sound as a certain razor acquires a keen edge]

:One reason why I am reasonably
:certain there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden is the utter
:absence of evidence for their presence. Which I take, pro tem, as
:"evidence of absence". Not *proof* of absence, mind you, but it will do
:for the moment. Carl Sagan should never have come out with that one.

So one assumes you also do not believe in neutrinos, tachyons,

Excellent examples. Both are particles predicted by theory, in the one
case as a necessity to balance all manner of energy equations, in the
other because the mathematics of general relativity do not actually
prohibit them. It took a good deal of effort to overcome the "absence
of evidence" problem for the neutrino, but the job was eventually done.
Tachyons, however, remain in much the same state as those fairies at
the bottom of my garden: perhaps they are there, but simply refusing to
interact with the rest of the universe. In the absence of any evidence
for their existence, that'll do fine.

the sun
during the evening,

As any fule kno, the sun in full flame clearly sinks beneath the Earth
to return the next morning. Travellers assure us that the farther west
they go, the later the sun sinks, providing at least some evidence for
a round Earth and a strong presumption that the sun goes around it.
Whether the Sun is drawn along its trajectory by chariots or some other
motive force must remain, for the moment, a matter of conjecture.

or any other number of outre and fantastic
concepts?

"Absence of evidence" remains quite sufficient for me to retain a
certain scepticism as to the likely existence of Little Grey Men who
stick curious objects up people's recta. No, I can't *prove* that LGM
don't exist, or don't indulge in such peculiar habits, or indeed that
Evil Creatures from Zeta Reticulae do not climb into George Bush's left
ear every night after supper to program him for the coming day. Or any
other number of "outre and fantastic concepts", for which the absence
of evidence is total.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:31:30 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Now, if you'd just quote something current, instead of the two month old
one...

Unfortunately YouGov don't have a more recent one. I have to take as
I find.

But you ignored the more-recent Zogby poll...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In science hypotheses are often only "working hypotheses" which cannot
be proved per se, but whose predictions and consequences can be tested
and the theory judged significant or useless. Finally all scientific
reasoning is inductive, only the theory, based on some set of axioms,
can be made deductive. At least that's what I have been taught...
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

Excellent.

So now you are ready to agree that the mountains of evidence we have
accumulated to demonstrate that Iraq had WMD programs, and WMDs themselves,
overwhelms the absence fo evidence that he destroyed them?

That is what you are saying, right?

If not, it would assist your position if you stated your fundamental
assumptions and took us from there.

In all this hoopla over not finding a "hihg enough" mountain of deployable
WMDs, I have yet to hear a cogent argument as to how that leads us to the
inescapable conclusion that they never existed or were somehow "trumped up."

Steve




"Alan Lothian" wrote in message
...
In article , Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Alan Lothian wrote:

:In article , Leslie Swartz
wrote:
:
: "Absence of Evidence" = "Evidence of Absence?"
:
: Since when?
:
:Since the beginnings of logical thought.

Wrong. One of the underpinnings of logical thought is that you CANNOT
prove a negative.

You will note that I quite specifically pointed out that absence of
evidence does not amount to proof. It is exactly what it says it is:
absence of evidence.
[FX: stropping sound as a certain razor acquires a keen edge]

:One reason why I am reasonably
:certain there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden is the utter
:absence of evidence for their presence. Which I take, pro tem, as
:"evidence of absence". Not *proof* of absence, mind you, but it will do
:for the moment. Carl Sagan should never have come out with that one.

So one assumes you also do not believe in neutrinos, tachyons,

Excellent examples. Both are particles predicted by theory, in the one
case as a necessity to balance all manner of energy equations, in the
other because the mathematics of general relativity do not actually
prohibit them. It took a good deal of effort to overcome the "absence
of evidence" problem for the neutrino, but the job was eventually done.
Tachyons, however, remain in much the same state as those fairies at
the bottom of my garden: perhaps they are there, but simply refusing to
interact with the rest of the universe. In the absence of any evidence
for their existence, that'll do fine.

the sun
during the evening,

As any fule kno, the sun in full flame clearly sinks beneath the Earth
to return the next morning. Travellers assure us that the farther west
they go, the later the sun sinks, providing at least some evidence for
a round Earth and a strong presumption that the sun goes around it.
Whether the Sun is drawn along its trajectory by chariots or some other
motive force must remain, for the moment, a matter of conjecture.

or any other number of outre and fantastic
concepts?

"Absence of evidence" remains quite sufficient for me to retain a
certain scepticism as to the likely existence of Little Grey Men who
stick curious objects up people's recta. No, I can't *prove* that LGM
don't exist, or don't indulge in such peculiar habits, or indeed that
Evil Creatures from Zeta Reticulae do not climb into George Bush's left
ear every night after supper to program him for the coming day. Or any
other number of "outre and fantastic concepts", for which the absence
of evidence is total.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

- Non Random sample
- In an inherenlty biased sub-population
- Using subjective collection
- Prone to "Socially Desirable Responding"

Hire a preacher to do a poll on abortion; send him to a tent revival to ask
people face to face about hteir attitudes toward abortion. In public.

The preacher will seek out those who will give the answers he wants, in a
crowd that already agrees with him, he will recieve answers the respondent
thinks are "socially desirable," and after all that he will "spin" the
answers he gets to best fit his desired outcome.

The for-profit polling organizations know all of this, of course, and they
know they will not be called to account like a scientist trying to publish
in a peer-reviewed journal would be. Therefore, they can pretty easily give
their client whaht they are paying for- which is support for one position or
another; not some objecitve "truth."

That's why the results of these "polls" are generally never to be trusted-
whether Zogby, Roper, CNN, whomever.

Steve Swartz


"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:54:09 -0400, Leslie Swartz
wrote:
Man on the street interviews conducted by a news organization, 8-10 July,
in
Baghdad . . .

YouGov is an opinion polling organisation.

Somewhat problematic methodology, generalizability-wise.

Because they used street polling? Or because it was in Baghdad?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?