Tony Blair to give all profits to British Legion

[oafc0000]

Gallup poll accuracy

http://www.presidenc...preferences.php

Ipsos Mori

http://www.ipsos-mor...px?oItemId=2425

Want some more?

Edited August 18, 2010 by oafc0000

[llcoolphil]

I still don't view myself as a scientist. But I have and do use Scientific Method...

When I am testing code I run a series of tests to prove or disprove that the code is correct. That is scientific method.

[llcoolphil]

Well do you want to have a conversation on their accuracy or their scientific attributes

[Ed209]

Congratulations on totally contradicting yourself. Idiot. So you now accept opinion polls have f**k all to do with scientific method? Or do you think properly followed scientific method results in massively inaccurate findings.

Before slagging someone of you might want get your own stupid opinion straight :£

[oafc0000]

You see, failed already. Were you were a scientist, you would understand completely that you cannot prove your code to be correct. If you ran it 5 times and it was right 5 times, you could simply prove that it was right for those 5 times. It would not prove that it would be right on the 6th time. If you ran it 100 times, you could prove that it was correct for those 100 times but you couldn't prove that it would be right for the 101st time. You would, however, have more confidence in 100 results that 5. Can you see how sample size is becoming important? The entire point of the scientific method is that you cannot prove something to be the case, only disprove it. Which is why scientists try to disprove current thinking rather than prove it. Every tme they fail to disprove a theory, the theory gets a little bit stronger. But they only have to disprove it once for it to be wrong.

Now considering I have just had to explain to you why you completely misunderstand the scientific method, Id be tempted to be a bit quieter about what you do and dont know

Edited August 18, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

I'm confused ... what are you going on about?

when I say their conclusion ain't perfect, then I mean what they conclude from the data is as good as they can do under the circumstances (because of the good scientific method they follow), but there's naturally going to be a small margin of error, i.e. they're conluding results ain't perfect...but they're good...

Oafc, this is actually stuff I know quite a bit about. Stop embarrasing yourself.

[llcoolphil]

So you wrongly think 100% code coverage is not achievable f**k me Phil, stick to shit you know about...

Here is some code...

I need to produce 4 so I write this code...

RETURN 2+2

What do you think the answer is going to be on the first go... on the sixth go... and on the nth go...

Bored of this now...

One final point...

General Election = Scientifically accurate Poll... Its measurable and reliable...

Opinion Poll = OPINION of the tested body... Any scaling of this OPINION would never be Scientific...

[llcoolphil]

Margin of error... I showed above how the method used in opinion polls could easily result in a totally wrong answer... Otherwise we could just scrap general elections and referendums and just use opinion polls.

[oafc0000]

You see part of the scientific method is indeed predictability and I would certainly agree that on the nth time of running, it would probably give the same answer. However, you have absolutely no way of proving that without running it nth times. Scientific method you see.

But I knew you'd get bored and run off. My scientific method of assessing how excheanges with oaf finish when the issue gets increasingly complicated is that he announces he's bored now on 100% of occassions, hence his behaviour is extremely predictable.

[oafc0000]

So why do you think they get it right on the hugest proportion of occassions within a very small margin of error - most pollsters aim for 95% accuracy? Do you think it's just luck?

[gratedenini]

Eeee Mr Oaf... yer a f**kin knockout lad. I think you should take me for a pint n puff using some of that Child Benefit that you really dont need.

You would be great to take fishing too... you get em biting all the time.

All these degrees and honours and all that cant bring you down, but Mr Oaf...can you make a Victoria Sponge?

den, VS maker.

[llcoolphil]

I am no stats person...

[llcoolphil]

Oaf - The Scientific Method in easy to understand language. Have a read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[oafc0000]

Eeee Mr Oaf... yer a f**kin knockout lad. I think you should take me for a pint n puff using some of that Child Benefit that you really dont need.

You would be great to take fishing too... you get em biting all the time.

All these degrees and honours and all that cant bring you down, but Mr Oaf...can you make a Victoria Sponge?

den, VS maker.

[oafc0000]

No shit, sherlock. However, if you have no understanding of statistics (a branch of mathematics and, therefore, definitely a science I would suggest)you can have no understanding of research, polls and surveys.

It would be better if you just bowed out gracefully.

[llcoolphil]

I show you up to an idiot, again... And you claim I am running off

The number of possible of outcomes from any code is fixed. The number of possible outcomes from the opinion of the entire country is fixed at anyone point. The only truly scientific way to test is to produce tests which cover all these outcomes. I make a lot of money doing just that and doing it well. Now when it passes these tests once, it will past these tests every time. You can't get any more scientific really.

Just like a correct count at a general election. The same can not be said about an OPINION poll.

You really are wrong here.

[oafc0000]

The code is either logically sound or not. The reliability of the person or system running the code is always a point of failure. But I M only responsible for my logic.

Edited August 18, 2010 by oafc0000

[llcoolphil]

I have a wife to go have sex with

[oafc0000]

8.48 to 9.09. Finishing herself off is she?

So given there are now people and systems involved, can you perhaps understand that you cannot prove that on the nth time you run it, that code will produce the same result? Scientific method you see, minmising the variables.

[llcoolphil]

Wrong... The logic produces consistent results... It is the

Logic I am testing... A failure down to the thing running it is easily detectable and proveable

Edited August 18, 2010 by llcoolphil

[nightcrawler13]

Any of you scienctists

[llcoolphil]

my girlfriend is

she just read this thread and said you're being an idiot

[oafc0000]

my girlfriend is

she just read this thread and said you're being an idiot

[Pogues Mcgogues]

The kind of information and working we're talking about is what everything you do in social science is based on.

Oaf - with what you are saying in this thread, are you telling me that sociological research in particular isn't real?

[Pogues Mcgogues]

You clearly have no idea what either are since linguistics contains elements of history, politics and sociology and what exactly do you suppose Social Policy might actually be?