Extrapolating the results of past discussions, I suspect not.Not by your definition. You set such a high standard.
Extrapolating the results of past discussions, I suspect not.Not by your definition. You set such a high standard.
Extrapolate doesn’t mean “to toss out”.
First, that’s not extrapolation either, unless you bend the definition unrecognizably. Second, you’re the one that gave the “I don’t know” answer as an option. But I guess when 75% of the respondents don’t agree with the answer you want, you think that eliminating it will make you right.That is true, it doesn’t mean toss out. After I toss out the bacon vote, extrapolation occurs when I make the seven votes yes or no equal 100%…
7 is a statistically insignificant sample size from which to draw a conclusion though, don't you agree?That is true, it doesn’t mean toss out. After I toss out the bacon vote, extrapolation occurs when I make the seven votes yes or no equal 100%…
7 is a statistically insignificant sample size from which to draw a conclusion though, don't you agree?
As of now, 19 respondents voted reasonably.
You need to look up the definition of the word. Theses definitions are precisely what I did. Look it up, and lay off the know it all routine…First, that’s not extrapolation either, unless you bend the definition unrecognizably.
Since when did “I don’t know” become disagreement? I simply am pointing out that of those that have an opinion about 80% believe it likely to have occurred. You are so butt hurt over this you displaying an amusing bias.Second, you’re the one that gave the “I don’t know” answer as an option. But I guess when 75% of the respondents don’t agree with the answer you want, you think that eliminating it will make you right.
Since when did “I don’t know” become disagreement? I simply am pointing out that of those that have an opinion about 80% believe it likely to have occurred. You are so butt hurt over this you displaying an amusing bias.
Butt hurt.Since when? Well, I guess since the results weren't what you wanted. But hurt? Not I.
Only you would think choosing not to answer the actual question is a real vote…You're the one that tried to throw away 75% of the vote.
I keep waiting for you to make the connection between bacon voters and all that is wrong with the Republican party because people won't commit to real answers.Butt hurt.
Only you would think choosing not to answer the actual question is a real vote…
LOL. You asked a question and provided 3 choices for answers.Butt hurt.
Only you would think choosing not to answer the actual question is a real vote…
You are leaving out the “likely” in the options, yes it was likely, no it was not likely, I asked a preponderance of the evidence question not a beyond a reasonable doubt question. Bacon is the refuge of this that are unknowing…LOL. You asked a question and provided 3 choices for answers.
1) yes it was likely
2) no it was not likely
3) I don't know/bacon.
"I don't know", is not only an answer to the question, it is the correct answer. And most people who responded, responded correctly. They gave the most accurate answer to the question available. Claiming it was likely, given the the weak information provided by GWP, without corroboration, and you even claimed at one point that your instincts are sufficient, are silly reasons to have such confidence that it happened. And why would I be butt hurt. I'm enjoying our conversations. We should do this more often.
I did not answer a “beyond reasonable doubt” question. Perhaps this example will help you understand why, and how the "likely" operates between question -> answer.You are leaving out the “likely” in the options, yes it was likely, no it was not likely, I asked a preponderance of the evidence question not a beyond a reasonable doubt question. Bacon is the refuge of this that are unknowing…
If the intelligence agencies have ran/fixed elections overseas, why wouldn't they do that here in 2020?TL;DR, Mike probably isn't crazy, per se.
Thinking about this a little more. Waiting for it to warm up a little outside... I've been thinking about the nature of the poll question and the question I compared it to, "have aliens from outer space visited Earth?"
Why be so confident in an answer without due cause? I just googled how many people believe aliens have visited Earth, and it looks to be about 7%. Are they crazy?
I think it's similar to the question, did we actually go to the moon? A similar portion of the population, 5%, strongly believe the moon landing was faked. So, are they crazy?
Here's another question in contrast of the poll question: Is the world flat? 1) likely, 2) not likely, 3) I don't know? Well, it's an absurd question, it's not just not likely, the correct answer is, "no, you ****ing nutter". It's an absurd claim, for which we have have no due cause to believe. The Earth is not flat. So yeah, I kinda think those people are crazy.
Does it matter if someone believes extraordinary things without due cause? I think it depends how absurd is the claim, and the due cause to believe it. In other words, the strength of evidence and rationale people apply to believe it.
Most people believe in something paranormal, for example. God/religion, is an example of that. I think religious belief is human nature. But that's not without due cause, per se, to believe in that. It's instinctive for most humans. One has to override the instinct for religion not to believe it. Belief in God is not an example of failing to think critically. It's believing in the default. But, it shows that belief is a tricky thing.
What about "is the world flat?" Is there something wrong with that thinking? I'd say yes. People who believe it fail to think critically. It's belief without due cause. I think those people probably believe all kinds of nutty things.
So what about people who believe there was a raid in Germany, given a bold claim and at best, weak evidence? I think people can have a capacity for critical thinking, but don't apply it to things they want to believe. Especially if they have a lot of trust in the people claiming it. I'd say I'm not confident enough to say they would be like the flat earth nutters, who would also believe all kinds of nutty things. However, I suspect the Venn diagram might show some overlap.
To say they're incapable of critical thinking or logical reasoning, we'd need to see a pattern of believe in extraordinary things without due cause, to have confidence they believe it just because they're nuts.
One thing I can conclude about this topic, is that Mike doesn't always apply sound logic. For example, he kept pushing the point that if I believe intelligence orgs have the capability/technology to fix elections, I should believe that they did. However, this is faulty logic because having the capacity does give due cause to believing it was likely to have happened. We'd need something else to rationally believe it was likely. Not everything that is possible, happens.