(May 8, 2010 at 12:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote: When public opinion polls are conducted, and only 100 people are questioned, the results don't say: .01% of the population is pro-choice, and .003% is anti-abortion, and 99.987% did not answer the poll so we don't know how they feel.
1. How would a survey of 100 people get fractions of a percent in anything?
2. Public opinion surveys rarely EVER have all people answering all questions. This does not give you the right to speak for them and speculate what they could have been or make calls based on limited information.
(May 8, 2010 at 12:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote: The 100 people questioned represent the entire nation in that poll.
Ridiculously small sample size for a nation.
(May 8, 2010 at 12:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote: So obviously, in the Mensa poll, those who were questioned represent the entire society, not the amount of members which were questioned.
Wrong. The results are representative of 80.6 percent of the population, not its entirety, as there is missing data. What don't you get about the phrase "You can't make up statistics when there is no information present"?
(May 8, 2010 at 12:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Since there were categories for atheists and members with no religion, then the 19.4% remaining members are indeed theistic, but part of religions which represented smaller percentages and which were omitted from the list.
Where the hell did it say ANY OF THAT, ANYWHERE on the site? Please provide some sort of demonstration of your assertion. I noticed you glossed over my example when it deals with the direct fallacy of your claim. Re-read it.
Here's ANOTHER example:
http://stason.org/TULARC/self-growth/men...Mensa.html
* MENSA DEMOGRAPHICS (USA)
64.4% male, 35.4% female (0.2% won't say)
Following your reasoning, the .2 percent necessarily can't be male or female, as there already were categories in place.
Does that make sense to you?
(May 8, 2010 at 12:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Sweet Lord, give me patience with this child!
Assumptions aren't evidence of anything. Loose and muddy associations aren't evidence for anything. You come here trying to form coherent arguments and you fail miserably time and time again. Either fix your modes of reasoning or stop posting garbage.