How many is enough?

Gunsang

A lot of you screwing around with numbers and assumptions forget that there will be some people who don't even know this is going on. You can't say either or of what's going on except for the people that voted. Now get over yourselves.

RivenEsq

Gunsang wrote: »

A lot of you screwing around with numbers and assumptions forget that there will be some people who don't even know this is going on. You can't say either or of what's going on except for the people that voted. Now get over yourselves.

The fact that 3000 people have voted is a substantial sample size. If they choose to disregard the poll and think they have the support of the community these changes affect, that is just ignorant. Also, just because people may not know this is happening doesn't mean that they don't have an opinion or it devalues the opinions of those that have spoken out.

You will seldom see ANY poll option garner the support of 90% of people that voted in it. You're a fool if you think that a survey of this size is meaningless.

Gunsang

RivenVII wrote: »

The fact that 3000 people have voted is a substantial sample size. If they choose to disregard the poll and think they have the support of the community these changes affect, that is just ignorant. Also, just because people may not know this is happening doesn't mean that they don't have an opinion or it devalues the opinions of those that have spoken out.

You will seldom see ANY poll option garner the support of 90% of people that voted in it. You're a fool if you think that a survey of this size is meaningless.

No No--I agree with what the poll is showing and that it's impressive to see the effect it has. I'm stating to just take it as is--because it is as is and nothing more/less.

It shows the voted players majority are unhappy with it, that the problem "should be looked at" or even reconsidered based on that majority. It is a very shiny poll sticking out compared to the rest, so definitely worth it's attention. It says something, but the claims coming from people that it says everything or even nothing at all is a few screws too loose.

Going into depth of the issue would be opinions and comparisons, something that belongs in the poll thread itself. The reason I'm saying "get over yourselves" to those with these wild claims are over-thinking and not taking things as is. It's not like people are trying to write a prophecy here.

WitchAngel

Zarec wrote: »

WitchAngel wrote: »

Zarec wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Zarec wrote: »

BenjaminKacher_ESO wrote: »

Zarec wrote: »

First off never assume...no scientist social or otherwise ever assumes.

@Zarec
Show me facts or that's an assumption.

Scientists by nature work with the scientific method to prove their work and all published work must be replicatable and receive the same results for it to be considered (crap forget the term,dang lack of sleep).

If it cannot be proven, you are just assuming it is true aka blind faith, which faith and science have never played well together (I blame their parents, they didn't let them play in the sandbox together)

Seems like more assumption about Science to me...

Out of curiosity....did you happen to fail freshman chemistry? The scientific method was was the first chapter in my old chem class and that was 14 years ago and I still remember it. Crap...reunion this year....who wants to be help me spike the punch

1) A scientific theory starts with an assumption, which you then try to put into test, and see if it fails or holds water. Without assumptions, science would be static.
2) We are going to space, building computers and much more using scientific theories not scientific facts.

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

i'm feeling lazy and don't have the patience to type it all out...

Just a hint: The word you are looking for is prediction. Not assumption. Consult a dictionary as you are getting those two words switched around. While close in definition they are not synonymous.

True that. But again.....I was 100% right when talking about facts vs theories. So we both made a mistake.

seanvwolf

Sorry to dig this one up from April! Oh, my... but I think it's pretty important for me to state this. Kind of a pet peeve of mine when I hear scientific method improperly explained or advocated for.

Zarec wrote: »

Scientists by nature work with the scientific method to prove their work and all published work must be replicatable and receive the same results for it to be considered (crap forget the term,dang lack of sleep).

If it cannot be proven, you are just assuming it is true aka blind faith, which faith and science have never played well together (I blame their parents, they didn't let them play in the sandbox together)

The scientific method was to test against something, not for something. For example, I make a claim. Tests are devised, hopefully by many others, to try to demonstrate the claim is false. If the claim fails, analyze whether the test is flawed or the claim is flawed. Retest. Retest. Retest.

The scientific method can't be used to "prove" anything. If that were the case, then we'd still not need to disinfect surgical tools like in the early 19th century, simply because it was "proven" that not all cases of sickness resulted from interaction with caretakers and that it must be something else causing infection.