posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:51 PM
I like the idea of the graph depicting the ATS members as a second column next to the total, although I think it would be very interesting in the
discussion sense of things if the total graph was displayed first and THEN the comparison graph was displayed a couple of days later.
9000+ people is a large poll in a media sense (even if only 4,217 are conspiracy 'nuts') but unlike most polls this one is open to anyone whom finds
it ( as opposed to target groups that polls are usually done on ). Most medical surveys that determine drug safety are conducted with a lot less ,
perhaps 1000 to 1500 if one is lucky and has a well funded study, and those are certainly done on target groups with the result being used to certify
the "safety" of prescription medicine.
Yes polls are interesting , but it is not the generality of people and the ease of a complacent mind that affects change, it is the percentage of
people with the right intelligence and fortitude to take action. What percentage of the population was responsible for the (successful) U.S.
The concept of denying ignorance is a concept in the mind, try to physically suppress it and it only grows, and though this poll was done 'in a fish
bowl' according to some posters , it has been my observation in the short time i have been on ATS that posters fall neatly into two one of two
categories (with few exceptions, but some sub categories )
Those whom use 'scientific method ' (for thinking and
Occam's razor is sometimes taken as" invent no extraordinary hypothesis." It seems obvious that one should use ordinary hypothesis in preference to
extraordinary ones when the former will explain the data.
It seems equally obvious that we would be doomed never to discover some of the most extraordinary things yet to be learned if we use no extraordinary
hypothesis. Indeed, the occasional extraordinary hypothesis which turns out to be true (though most are not ) is sure to have little supporting
evidence at first( or else it wouldn't be extraordinary)
and those who use Unscientific Method:
It seems to matter not whether the hypothesis is right or wrong, but only that it is completely unacceptable to the 'authorities' of the times for it
to produce an unscientific response.
You may look for this phenomenon whenever you hear someone espousing a new idea. Do his opponents stick to the hypothesis and use scientific
principles in their replies? Or do they switch to the "Unscientific Method" with it's most useful weapon, the "ad-hominem" Attack? This is where one
tries to discredit the (speaker/poster) himself , his institution , his motives , or anything associated with his ideas , rather than addressing the
Another principle of the U.M. is "discrediting by association", E.g. "96% of Heroin users previously smoked marijuana" is just as true as "96% of
Heroin users previously drank milk" . By the rules of logic neither of the assumed relationships can be derived as fact from the association in our
minds alone, unless one also adds a chain of evidence connecting either milk or marijuana to heroin use .
- Van Flandern
and Christians , gays and conspiracy 'nuts' are not the only exclusive clubs let's not forget other entrenched systems:
"Trying to find an open minded scientist is like trying to find a fundamentalist Christian who loves his enemies." -John Anthony West
edit on 12-5-2011 by Silverlok because: of, seriously two damn letters forgot twice is a magic spell I tell ya, and who/whom isn't important