scottie said:
Sorry, do you mind if I explain a thing called 'the Scientific method' to you. I suggest as one thing, they took it over too short a time scale for it to be scientifically valid Secondly, 1000 people is not enough, 10 000 would be a much more sensible number, but even then the uncertainties would be huge. Anyone else got any ideas as to how the survey could have been improved? |
I do mind as I was commenting on the 1000 people thing, not the article as a whole or the results, this is normal practice for 'poll' takers, 1000 people is standard number for these types of thing.
But whether this data is correct or even accurate is a different matter entirely which I wasn't commenting on.
Hmm, pie.







