----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Tragedy in Israel
> 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". Sure, there have been, in history, suicidal attacks that are not terrorist attacks. The kamakazi attacks in WWII would be an example of this. But, I was talking about actual attacks by Palestinians on Israel, in particular the recent ones. Would you care to name one suicide attack from this infatal that was consistant with the Geneva convention? > > > 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. Well, it was given as a general indication of opinion. Lack of stated methodology is a minus, but the fact that the poll was sponsered by someone who has a track history (AP) is a plus. It is probable that they know something about methodology and would not lend their name to a poll that didn't follow any decent methodology. >Regardless, was the same question asked both times, with the exact same phrasing, and using > identical polling techniques? > Errors can be introduced by small changes in wording. One always wants identical wording. But, the changes that result from small changes in wording usually are in the range of 10% or so. > > 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. > If you publish, yes that is worthwhile. If I can supply methodogy for the poll, then it would decrease the probable error. That's valid. It would increase the versimilitude. But, even without these, a poll is better than nothing. What else would you base your views of the Palestinian's attitude? > You work in a technical field. Do you really make important decisions > based on data of ambiguous methodology, without references or peer > review? Yes, of course I do. An example was when it was 10 PM, the tools are going out at 7AM, and it will take 6 hours of work to prepare the tools. No matter what you do, you can't push the deadline back. So, you give it your best shot. You take field reports, inconsistant lab results, and make the very best decision you can. There is a school of thought to delay all decisions until the information is perfect. Most people I know who are in that school of thought, really do little, but are spectacular Monday morning quarterbacks. There is one exception who is a friend of mine. We had to pry his work out of his hands and tell him it really was good before it was used, though. He wanted to be absolutely sure. You know I tend to provide as much data as I can to back up my claims. Indeed, I would wager that if we went back and looked at arguements made over the last few years, I would supply more data than the average poster. I don't think you tend to provide more data than I do, but I'd be willing to be proven wrong. Going back to the main point, this is one of the biggest differences between applied science/engineering and science. In science, one does have peer review, documentation of methodology, etc. In applied science and engineering, one usually just makes the best decision possible. > > > 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. > >From looking at the variation of answers to polls with slightly different wording. AP has a reputation and a history of polling. I've followed it, and have seen their typical errors in Presidential polls and multiplied it by about 2. What is your basis for the possibility that the real number is 15% to 115%? BTW, I found a detailed poll that was done last June at: http://www.jmcc.org/polls/2001/no41.htm It gave the following answers to a question about the suicide bombongs: What about the suicide bombing operations? Do you see them as a suitable response in the current political conditions or do you oppose them and see them harmful to national interests? I see them as a suitable response in the current political conditions 68.6 I oppose it and see it as harmful to Palestinian national interests 23.1 I don't know 6.2 No answer 2.1 Its worth noting that Hammas has only 18.6% support in this earlier pollThe change in numbers for Hammas are consistant with news reports from people in the region. The question was asked > > 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. > I can see taking data with a grain of salt. But, calling it worthless? I would like to suggest that this frees one to hold whatever opinion one wants to. I have now given methodology for an earlier poll. The questions don't look all that weird. I suppose that you can insist that I get the origional questions and translate them myself, but I think that this does quilify as evidence of Palestinian attitude. Let me ask you, have you got contrary evidence? Dan M.
