On 22 January 2012 22:54, Mike Godwin <mnemo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> There's a massive selection bias there! Of course the NGOs that do >> lots of lobbying think lobbying is a great idea, otherwise they >> wouldn't be doing it. > > Not only that, but of course people who eat food and drink water to > sustain themselves are unlikely to give proper weight to Breatharian > points of view! > > That pesky POV problem keeps rearing its noisy head wherever you look. ;)
Indeed. That's why I asked for independent research. Research from NGOs that have chosen not to engage in lobbying would be just as useless. > I welcome your independent research project when you get it started. > Or anybody's, really. I suppose the null hypothesis is that one can > simply stay silent and wins the issue anyway. Obviously, I tend to > fall on the Gandhi/Martin Luther King side of that issue -- at least > I'm transparent about my biases. I disagree - the null hypothesis is that the gain from lobbying isn't worth the cost, not that the gain is zero. (Cost includes far more than just monetary cost, of course.) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
