Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski
No, I was not suggesting anecdotal is preferable. I'm wondering if you base your opinions on a 'statistically representative' poll you tend to think, a % in some poll indicate x so every individual in that group deserve a level of skepticism.
Let's justify putting them all on a watch list. Or it's ok to take away rights of an entire group of people.
There were also posters who stated they know friends, or live in a country where views don't follow that % so those anecdotes are somehow less informative.
|
They are less informative. Inherently. Anecdoctal evidence is useless from a policy perspective. This, meanwhile, makes
no sense:
Quote:
|
I'm wondering if you base your opinions on a 'statistically representative' poll you tend to think, a % in some poll indicate x so every individual in that group deserve a level of skepticism.
|
That is the exact opposite of what accurate polling should show. It demonstrates that NOT every individual in the group holds the belief surveyed for. Specifically, in Britain, if the poll is accurate and subject to its margin of error, 70% do think suicide bombing is justified in some cases, while 30% don't. That is the
opposite of a generalization. It still demonstrates that there are millions of Muslims who hold that belief, which is not a good belief to hold, and a problem that needs confronting.