Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
7
6
7
1
5
5
7
10
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Nice try
the burden of proof is on you
the burden of proof is on you to show that this study is meaningful. If you don't know the margin of error then you can't honestly make the claim you are making.
- reckoner
August 30, 2008 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fair enough, I'll repeat what I wrote below.
With over 100,000 respondents to the survey, and over 10,000 vegetarians, this is a statistically significant number. Don't forget that in IQ, one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. Consider that the average IQ was perhaps too high on this test, reset the average to 100, and this jumps to 4% of the population.
With 1,674 respondents for vegans, over, the differences are statistically significant. Consider that in IQ, the mean is 100 and one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 103.69 and 109.85 is 14.7% of the population. That's huge. With a survey size of 1,600 people, the margin of error is less than 3%. Between mere vegetarians and meat-eaters, the gap is much smaller, which makes sense, since vegans are more likely to be nutritionally deficient because they are excluding more foods from their diet. The difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. But the margin of error is also much greater, since the sample size is 6.6 times larger for vegetarians and vegans.
- LiberalMulroney
August 30, 2008 10:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
smoke and mirrors
You still haven't given the margin of error for the results. I'll assume that means you don't know it.
- reckoner
September 3, 2008 3:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Margin of error
No one seems to know much statistics here. The confidence MUST be set in advance, and determines the margin of error. To speak of one without the other is meaningless. That is, if you wish to discriminate among populations (vegans and meat lovers) with 90% confidence level, you might have a margin of error of 1, or 2, or 1.75 points. However, you can't go back to say a 1.75% gives a 90% confidence level - that's intellectually dishonest and statistically bankrupt.
As Disraeli said, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'.
- AlibiFarmer
September 5, 2008 12:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
it's been a while
it's been a while since I took statistics in college, but I don't not believe that the confidence level would change my point. Actually, if it did change it would be in my favor. If the margin of error is greater than 1.75 at 90% then the poll is meaningless. If it is greater than 1.75 at 95% then it is even more meaningless ;)
Either way my asking for the margin of error holds. Btw, I find it odd that you took the time to comment with the sole purpose of saying that you know statistics better than others. You didn't add any value to our discussion of the poll at hand.
- reckoner
September 6, 2008 10:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.