Re: Decimal versus binary arithmetic was Re: J4 -

On Apr 8, 1:24=A0pm, Robert <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:12:37 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrot=
e:
> >On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:19:36 -0600, Robert <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>That sort of ad hominem is what government and big cor****ations do
when =
caught in a lie to
> >>which they have no rational defense. Members of this august forum have
m=
ore artful
> >>responses.
>
> >>Robert: The sun rises in the east.
>
> >Most of the following was amusing - but the basis is that your
> >statement is one that nobody but a fool could argue with. =A0 =A0To be
> >more accurate, you should have started off with:
>
> >Robert: =A0 Dogs have spots.
>
> If two out of two dogs had spots, concluding that all dogs have spots
woul=
d probably, but
> not necessaryily, be a hasty generalization. If a thousand out of a
thousa=
nd dogs had
> spots, the generalization would probably be correct. There is a line
somew=
here between two
> and a thousand. Determining where it is requires independent knowledge
of =
the standard
> deviation between dogs, and a stated confidence interval. If the
deviation=
 where known to
> be zero (dogs are clones), a sample size of one would be adequate. If
the =
goal were
> certainty, abstraction and generalization would be impossible because we
w=
ould have to
> sample every dog in the past, present and future.
>

Yeah, but all that rationalisation and argument is completely
irrelevant when I have a dog here that has no spots.

And that is the real problem with most of your arguments. You have
even claimed that the deviation was zero and thus a sample size of one
or two was sufficient to claim 'all' when _my_ sample was not like
yours at all.


> As a rule of thumb, moderate precision (90%) measurements of human
opinion=
 require 50-200
> samples; high precision (98%) requires 1,000-2,000. Haven't you seen
code =
written by 100
> programmers?


But taking sample opinions of 1000 southern baptists merely shows them
_all_ to be wrong.