Conservapedia talk:Schlafly statistics
I hope Schlafly realizes that you could use real statistics to advance progressive causes using his logic[edit]
Such as the whole abstinence-versus-comprehension debate. Andy claims that 99% of Christian converts from Islam change their names. Meanwhile, condoms have been show to work 99% of the time. Think Andy will bank on the 99% THIS time? Didn't think so. --Crazyswordsman 23:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Best of CP[edit]
Is it at that level yet? - π 02:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's been there for a while. ħuman
03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay added. - π 03:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Another One[edit]
Doubly good because I doubt you'll find 100 teenagers who believe the earth is that old anyway - I believed it was 4-4.5 billion years old when I was a teenager. Still do. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 11:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
6 times more liberal than the American public[edit]
I think I understand Schlafly's logic. Though he doesn't use the best wording, think of this the following way. You have one group that has 10 conservatives and 5 liberals, and another group that has 10 conservatives and 30 liberals. This has the same ratios that Schlafly mentions, and to get from the first group to the second you have to increase the amount of liberals by 6. I know this reasoning is problematic but I think this is his line of inquiry, rather than mistaking ratios for fractions. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly the entry on this subject is very contentious, and describing Schafly's number as 'entirely fallacious' is .. entirely fallacious. Firstly, the calculation resulting in a number of 2.25 is only the odds ratio of self-describing as a liberal for WP editors vs the American public. That's not what most people would understand by the term 'more liberal' when describing an organization: it ignores the non-liberals. As Mr Anon implies, we also need to capture the fact that the WP editors are apparently 8/3 = 2.7 times less likely to be conservative. The measure of liberality of an group in the sense Schafly intends, surely, must involve some measure of the difference between libs and cons, or the ratio between them, and the 2.25 number only reflects a part of this difference.
- Doublenegative (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm only eight years late to the party. But I read this section and had the exact same thoughts.
- Say my christmas lights are 50% red 50% green christmas lights. I want them to be twice as red as before - does that means 66% red, or 100% red? I don't know.
- "Six times more liberal" is a pretty meaningless statement on it's own. It is clear what Schlafly is referring to is the ratio of liberals to conservatives.
- (3/2)/(1/2)=6 is perfectly valid. In other words, the public is 1:2 (equal to 0.5:1), WP is 3:1. Therefore there are 3/0.5=6 times more liberals per conservative person on WP. The supposed explanation is a bit silly (where does the 300% figure even come from? I calculate 33.3%*6=200%).Kauri0.o (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I think Schlafy's logic holds in this case. If we start with his assertion of 1 part liberal to 2 parts conservative in America (1:2 ratio, or 33% liberal), and then multiply the liberal part by 6, we end with 6 parts liberal to 2 parts conservative (3:1 ratio, 75% liberal) -- the stated Wikipedia ratio. Similarly, in the Christmas light example above, the correct answer is 66% red. That is, if we start with 50/50 red/green (1:1 ratio), and want to double the red portion, we end up with a 2:1 red/green ratio, i.e. 66% red. Example: start with 3 strands of each color, then double the red to 6 strands, you end up with 6 red to 3 green (2:1 ratio, 66% red lights). Cpetty (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Uh?[edit]
What's the "chimney sweep" thing meant to mean? MESSIAH OF DOOM Mortality is truth… 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)