Ok, well, it doesn’t imply enough knowledge to be able to answer the question, so it’s a distinction without a difference.
Not sure doesn’t mean that I agree or disagree with the facts presented, it simply means “unsure” , not “I DON’T KNOW”
I’m not sure how to explain the difference further to you if you haven’t grasped it.
But Bush DID know an attack of some sort was coming. That’s a fact. Answering that Bush knew an attack was coming is not the same as expressing a belief that he was in on it.
It should also be noted that Bush’s credibility on just about everything took a huge nosedive after it was discovered that he had lied about the WMDs in Iraq. That was, in itself, such huge, and consequential and unlikely lie that it made people question everything else he said. As implausible as the possibility of Bush having prior, specific knowledge of the 9/11 attacks might have been, it had also seemed equally implausible that he would just make up the WMDs in Iraq, but he did.
Obama has not blown such a giant hole in his own credibility as Bush did, and the doubts about his birth are not just based on an implausible hypothesis (far more implausible than Bush hypothetically being able to have specific advance knowledge of 9/11 – I’m not talking about character or personality here, just physical, theoretical plausibility), but a hypothesis which has actually been factually disproven.
There isn’t any difference. “I don’t know” doesn’t imply any more opinion of the facts than “I’m not sure.”
How is somebody saying they don’t know whether Barack was born in the United States a more informative answer than saying they’re not sure? How is it less embarrassing?
Because not sure implies some knowledge on the subject as in the facts might be inconclusive (or not easily accessed), whereas an " I don’t know" answer to the same question would imply NO knowledge of the subject at all. To me, it’s just a tricky distinction to ensure someone answers the question, however in this case, improperly.
When the “not sure” demographic gets lumped in with the Yes or No vote to skew debate falls with your way of thinking there is no reason for distinction. I am saying there is reason for distinction.
Also, I make no claims about more or less embarrassing.
I don’t agree that this distinction exists, nor do I agree that there’s anything “tricky” about it. It’s a standard phrasing in polling, and I don’t see why you think 'I don’t know" would be a less favorable answer to a hypothetically biased pollster than “I’m not sure.” If anything “I’m not sure” is slightly more generous. It’s euphemistic. It affords the utterly clueless with the fig leaf of being able to assert uncertainty rather than dirt ignorance.
Once more, “I’m not sure” is not a demographic, it’s an answer to a poll question, and I don’t understand what you mean by “lumped in with Yes or No,” or how you think it “skews” anything. Skews it how?
To put it bluntly, how is “I don’t know” whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen a less stupid answer than “I’m not sure?”
Because ‘I don’t know’ is an admission of ignorance of the subject, where as ‘I’m not sure’ means that the person may have a little knowledge on the subject but is uncertain where they stand on it. It’s a subtle difference, but there IS a difference.
I’m not sure (;)) how this may or may not skew the results though…
-XT
Well, strictly speaking, none of us know. We can be (and should be) reasonably certain, but that’s not the same as absolute knowledge.
I doubt anyone responding to the poll read into it that much, of course, but the distinction does exist.
The phrasing of the question has to come into play.
“Is there life outside our solar system?” “I’m not sure,” is a perfectly valid response, mostly because there is just no evidence one way or another.
“Was Obama born in America?” “I’m not sure” is an answer born of willful ignorance, mostly because there *is *a pile of evidence one way or another.
My point being, “I’m not sure,” to the second question may as well be lumped in with, or at least associated with, a “No,” as they are ignoring the same facts to come up with a response.
Some people are just that poorly informed, though. They may not even have heard of the controversy (I use the term advisedly) over Obama’s birthright citizenship. I bet if the same question were posed to self-described Democrats you’d get a similar number of “not sure” responses.
I’d agree with all points raised with one exception:
The distinction is only necessary when one side or the other lays claim to the “not sure” or “I don’t know” category as their own
If you want to discuss this, I suggest you start a new thread and tell us what you think evolution is about. My sense is you don’t understand it very well.
What side is there to take? The question, at least as I laid it out, doesn’t beg a side. It begs truth.
If I were to conduct a poll in which the question was, “Is the sky blue?” I would feel quite confident in lumping the “Noes” in with the “Not Sures,” notwithstanding the ones who see a sky that is gray, or azule, or whatever other rationalization might be trotted out to avoid the spirit of the question.
You win the understatement of the year award! Your ceramic dog and SDMB board game will be available after the show…
-XT
So now we finally figured out the cause of Americans’ seemingly colossal ignorance! They lie to pollsters as their roundabout way of helping America:
“And Martha, tell that pollster we don’t believe in evolution either. When ‘they’ hear that, they’ll finally increase funding for public education.”
Of course this doesn’t always work out:
“Well Martha, maybe voting for Bonzo the Chimp wasn’t such a smart way to send a signal after all. Never thought he’d actually win the election!”
Ah … Great Moments in Political Science. 
:smack:
YOU might be begging fro truth but pollsters merely want to make a point (or three)
Lumping in the not Sure with the Yes’s could just as easily be justifiable.
And if you “Don’t know” whether or not “Obama wants the terrorists to win” then there’s something wrong with you and it’s worth including in the results. For the record, there is only one acceptable answer to that question and that is “Fuck you, Mr. Pollster”.
I am open to ideas. Skipping human evolution how does science explain how the earth was created and can it be proven? If I am unsure of something then why bother debating? I thought debating was about exchanging ideas and learning from it. Does someone always have to be right?
If you are open to ideas how about opening a book on science? Do you think scientists don’t have ideas on the origin of the earth and the solar system in general? Start here.
In this day and age, you have to willfully not want to learn to remain clueless on a subject like this.
Through the accretion of dust and gases in the protoplanetary disc around the young sun, why? As for proof, it certainly holds up in terms of explaining observed facts, although there are interesting details to be worked out. Creationists cannot same the same. Creationism is just a story.
No, neither party has to be right. We could both be wrong, although the odds of you being wrong are much, much higher than mine.