Are you just not reading my repeatedly linked cite?
It states what percentage of Americans overall think that a certain view is “definitely” or “probably” true, and then it goes on to show the prevalence of that view among various “groups that are more likely to believe” it, as well as among various “groups that are less likely to hold this belief”.
If you still don’t get it, look at the linked data tables at the end of the linked article. For instance, the first part of those tables contains survey data on the view that “God controls the climate, therefore humans can’t be causing global warming”. The survey respondents are broken down into various categories, and the proportions of each category answering “yes” to the question about that view are stated.
**For instance: In the category “Gender”, the stated proportion for “Male” is 15% and the stated proportion for “Female” is also 15%. Do you honestly think that those numbers are telling you what percentage of the respondents who hold that view are male or female? That would imply that 70% of the respondents holding that view identify as neither male nor female, quod est absurdum. **
I.e., your interpretation of the relative percentages is just plain batshit. The “Gender” category is telling us that 15% of males hold this particular view, not that 15% of people who hold this particular view are male.
Likewise, the “Religious Affiliation” category is telling us that 30% of Evangelical/Born-Again Christians hold this view, not that 30% of people who hold this view are Evangelical/Born-Again Christians.
Golly. I have to hand it to you, DrDeth. You could have gotten away with excusing your ludicrous statistical snafu as merely the result of a temporary brain fart, but no, you tenaciously soldiered on to prove that it’s what you actually think.
Again, you are going at this backward. Of those polled 2.6% are American Evangelicals who hold that belief. Not that 26% of Evangelicals hold that belief. You can’t draw that backwards conclusion from the limited data, as this wasnt a poll of evangelicals.
Both of your examples are incorrect because you are misusing their data.
Let us take your other example. 15% of Americans that were polled believe God Controls the climate. Of that 15% 30% are Evangelicals. Thus of Americans 5% are evangelicals who hold that view. You can’t go backwards and say that 30% of Evangelicals hold that view, as Evangelicals weren’t polled- Americans were. That is a incorrect use of polling statistics.
Of Americans 10% “think the end times are coming, therefore we don’t need to worry about global warming.” Of that 10% 26% identify as Evangelicals, thus 2.6% of Americans are Evangelicals who hold that belief.
My point is , once you get down to that small of %, with a total poll of about 1000 people- anything under 3% is noise and you can’t use it to draw a conclusion.
“*Sample details and margins of error
All samples are subject to some degree of sampling error—that is, statistical results obtained from a
sample can be expected to differ somewhat from results that would be obtained if every member of the
target population were interviewed. The margins of error for this survey, at the 95% confidence level, was
plus or minus 3 percentage.”
Okay, now the situation has progressed from :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: to :eek:. I have seldom seen on these boards a comparable example of obstinate doubling down on the ignorance.
“…therefore humans can’t be causing global warming.” Yes. On that we are definitely agreed.
Now, DrDeth, I want you please to look at the Data Table for the category “Gender” near the very beginning of this page, which contains the survey data discussed in the article.
You will see that that Data Table lists “Male: 15%” and “Female: 15%”.
I’m asking you this, DrDeth, and please think about it carefully: do you think that those stated figures mean that 15% of the survey respondents who hold this view identify as male, and 15% of them identify as female?
If so, then here’s my follow-up question: does it make sense to you that fully 70% of the survey respondents who hold this view identify as neither male nor female?
If not—and I certainly hope not—then I think you have to agree that that Data Table is telling us that 15% of male survey respondents hold that view, not that 15% of the survey respondents who hold that view are male.
And then I think it will be clear to you that the corresponding Data Table for the category “Religious Affiliation” is likewise telling us that 30% of Evangelical/Born-Again survey respondents hold that view, not that 30% of the survey respondents who hold that view are Evangelical/Born-Again. Whew. Words, very uncharacteristically, fail me.
So can we take it that you’ve recognized (even if you don’t quite feel up to admitting) the mistake you were making in interpreting those percentages?
Because if not, I can describe plenty of other fun absurdities resulting from applying DrDethMath to the figures in those Data Tables.
For instance, according to DrDethMath, of all the survey respondents who hold the view “God controls the climate, therefore humans can’t be causing global warming”:
16% have a less than high school education, 22% have completed high school, 13% have completed some college, 11% have completed a bachelor’s degree or higher, and apparently the remaining 38% don’t fall into any educational category whatever. :eek:
21% have a less than $30K household income, 13% have about 30K-60K, 14% have about 60K-100K, 15% have greater than $100K, and apparently the remaining 37% don’t fall into any household income category whatever. :eek:
We also get fully 55% of the respondents who hold that view being neither black, non-Hispanic white, nor Hispanic. Given that 15% of all Americans hold that view, we are forced to conclude that fully 8.25% of all Americans are non-black non-white non-Hispanics who believe “God controls the climate, therefore humans can’t be causing global warming”. That’s almost more non-black non-white non-Hispanics than are contained in the entire US population. :eek:
:dubious: Well, as long as you don’t inflict further mathematical fallacies on this discussion I don’t really care whether or not you publicly concede they’re fallacious.
Well, I have definitely been insulting DrDeth’s mathematical arguments, which richly deserved it. But I hope and trust I have not been personally insulting DrDeth himself or any other poster. If I have, of course, anybody is welcome to turn me in to the mods and I’ll take my beating.
Are you just not reading my repeatedly linked cite?
