Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
43. You don't understand sample sizes???
Sat Dec 21, 2013, 12:35 PM
Dec 2013

kristopher,

Do you not understand the role sample sizes play when attempting to derive conclusions based on statistics?

Do you not realize that when you have a large sample that one can validly draw statistical conclusions based on sampling a large number of case?

However, do you not realize that when you sample only 2 case; that one can't draw meaningful conclusions?

Gee - I thought the case with the Obama / Romney poll in my previous post was easy enough for you to understand.

Suppose you are taking a poll prior to the November 2012 election, and you only sample 2 people.

As we know, the public was almost evenly divided between Obama and Romney; with Obama a few points ahead, which is why he is still President.

So if you pick a person at random; it's just about half and half that you get an Obama or Romney supporter.

So it's about half that you will randomly choose a Romney supporter for your first sample, and another half that the second will also support Romney.

So the combined probability is almost 25% that you will randomly choose 2 Romney supporters to poll.

So both your samples will say they are voting for Romney. What can you conclude from that?

The answer is NOT a DAMN THING. The sample size is TOO SMALL to discern the few percentage points separating Obama and Romney.

You don't know when the data you have is WORTHLESS?

As for that PALTRY reference discussion; that didn't "shred" anything.

It's just a bunch of UNSUBSTANTIATED crap from Shrader-Frechette in which she claims scientists are making up data.

Does she substantiate that? NO WAY - in fact she references HERSELF a lot. What type of "scholar" uses themselves the substantiate themselves.

That makes for a bit circular argument.

Of course, she's not really a scholar. How can one be an expert in "ethics" if someone LIES all the time?

Don't cite Shrader-Frechette as "proof" of anything to me; I know FRAUDS when I see them.

PamW

One more nuclear energy mishap and you can write nuclear energy off as history madokie Dec 2013 #1
Here is an interactive map showing population around nuclear plants kristopher Dec 2013 #3
Population INCREASES near nuclear power plants. PamW Dec 2013 #4
So we have your vote kristopher Dec 2013 #6
kristopher's DESPERATION! PamW Dec 2013 #8
OK kristopher Dec 2013 #10
Pretty PUNY mushroom cloud. PamW Dec 2013 #14
Why do people move there? For jobs! Starboard Tack Dec 2013 #42
I just looked randomly at three madokie Dec 2013 #7
100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #2
If you don't calm down you're going to have a heart attack madokie Dec 2013 #5
I'm NOT upset!! PamW Dec 2013 #9
You coulda' fooled me madokie Dec 2013 #13
NOT at ALL!!! PamW Dec 2013 #18
You think you could get by with talking to me like this in person madokie Dec 2013 #21
Why is it any way inappropriate? PamW Dec 2013 #26
BALONEY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #11
I don't give a damn if you're Jesus Christ or Gawd himself madokie Dec 2013 #15
Why would there be anything wrong with it??? PamW Dec 2013 #19
You just don't get it do you? madokie Dec 2013 #23
PamGreg isn't upset kristopher Dec 2013 #12
I wonder the same think madokie Dec 2013 #16
kristopher's retreat... PamW Dec 2013 #22
I don't feel sure I understand the question phantom power Dec 2013 #17
I was wondering the same thing NickB79 Dec 2013 #20
You have your 'clarification' kristopher Dec 2013 #25
One could say... PamW Dec 2013 #27
You're making a personal attack to avoid an uncomfortable question kristopher Dec 2013 #28
They may have been the most gungho... PamW Dec 2013 #31
Anyone familiar with near misses like Davis Besse knows that we've just been lucky. kristopher Dec 2013 #32
100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #35
Right.That football sized hole in Davis Besse's reactor head is something the Japanese did. kristopher Dec 2013 #37
How does that relate.....?????? PamW Dec 2013 #38
You didn't, in fact, offer any clarification NickB79 Dec 2013 #33
What would happen to our investment and our plan to move away from carbon? kristopher Dec 2013 #24
OK, I think I see... phantom power Dec 2013 #30
Seriously? You are disputing the fact that prevailing winds saved Tokyo? kristopher Dec 2013 #34
Mathematical ILLITERACY at play PamW Dec 2013 #36
More like either illiteracy or deliberate misdirection on your part kristopher Dec 2013 #40
You don't understand sample sizes??? PamW Dec 2013 #43
That isn't relevant at all to your attempt at data trimming ... kristopher Dec 2013 #44
'Shoot the messenger' is THE go to strategy the nuclear industry uses against any and all critics. kristopher Dec 2013 #47
The consequences are clear enough. 2013 is going to be the worst year for accumulation of... NNadir Dec 2013 #29
So one needs to be a misanthrope to hold nuclear energy dear cprise Dec 2013 #39
Um...um...um... NNadir Dec 2013 #41
Why on earth would a smart guy like you have expected "this time" to be different? GliderGuider Dec 2013 #45
Go on NNadir, listen to GG... Join the dark side. n/t cprise Dec 2013 #46
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Reason for and a critical...»Reply #43