On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 06:53:28PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > First of all, the suicide bombings are factually the same things as > the terrorist attacks.
Fuzzy thinking. You need to be more careful. First of all, you again messed up the wording. The article said "suicide attacks". Obviously, a suicide attack is a generality of which a terrorist attack is one overlapping, but not identical, set. It should be obvious that there can be suicide attacks that are not terrorist attacks. They are certainly not "factually the same thing". > Why is the evidence conmpletely worthless? If the same question is > asked both times, why shouldn't the shift be worthwhile. First of all, I didn't read your original use of the data as being used to prove a shift, but rather an absolute. Regardless, was the same question asked both times, with the exact same phrasing, and using identical polling techniques? > I know, as a engineer/scientist working with imperfect data is an > absolute requirement. So is accurately and precisely explaining the methodology used, and citing references for more detailed information. And peer review. You work in a technical field. Do you really make important decisions based on data of ambiguous methodology, without references or peer review? > AP does have a reputation for polling. They have a track record. > Even if there are biases in the polls, one should expect +/-10%. How do you determine this? I can pull numbers out my ass, too. I expect +/- 50% due to biases in this situation. > Plus, the second poll was from a totally different organization, which > is Palestinian in origin. So, we have a Western news agency poll and > a Palestinian poll agree, and its still worthless? Without knowing the methodology, it is worthless as far as I'm concerned. Maybe it is the same pollsters in both cases? Not too farfetched, given the sketchy details available. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
