Yar. My position IS the default position.
This is where I have problem. You HAVE accepted the results without critically analyzing the article.
It IS the standard, this IS how polls are done.
**Maybe but it would not always be considered "Valid’. **
Not only this same article nor any statitician can say the result of any ‘satistically significant study/poll’ be considered clinially/practically valid. Which you are so vehemently advocating!
I’ve given you a link that calculates sample size, given confidence intervals.
**Yes and I said the margin of error is too high just because the total population is very very large compared to sample size, the sample size needs to be higher and CI be lowered. **
**This is the fundemental problem of not only this article but many of these kind of studies/polls may have where the total population is completely ignored and just based on confidence interval/margin of error around 2-4, the sample size of 2000 is picked. **
**Luckily, in some well designed studies, other factors like alpha/beta error/sampling errors/selection or sampling bias is also considered. **
**Also the study conductors NEVER force people to accept the results. **
I’ve given you a list of fifty national US polls, with sample sizes averaging around 1200-1500 (for a country of > 300 million). This IS how its done.
**Read above. **
**Validity of results is what I questioned from the beginning. Having 1000 to 2000 sample out of 180 to 300 millions (less the minors/too old/mentally ill persons etc.) population can never be considered ‘valid’. **
**Statistically significant YES, but not necessarily valid. **
Especially when it is based on opinions. Opinions which every person may hold. Not like the diseases or drug based studies where a smaller sample would make a study ‘clinically significant’ because diseases usually do not affect EVERYONE and one can get better selection of sample population with some hardcore measurable or identifiable characterstics.
Lets settle the issue of ‘merely’ 2000 before we come to urban population bias. Do you have ANY mathematical reason for why 2000 is too small a sample size for a population of 180 million. Please confine your answer to this specific point. We will come to urban and skewing in due course. Lets just settle sample size for now.
**I did. **
Small, based on accepting high margin of error.
Remember, you are arguing against an established science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Im happy if you want to prove statistics wrong, but for God’s sake, come up with something remotely mathematical.
If you place a lower confidence of interval/margin of error, the result would be more close to being valid with larger sample size. Got it?