Lawlight said:
Aielyn said:
Lawlight said:
2000 data points for worldwide numbers? Well, that would expect that big inaccuracies. |
If we assume a reasonably unbiased sampling for those 2000 data points, then you would expect a margin of error at 95% confidence of 2.2%, assuming an infinite population. Smaller for the real population. That is, 95% of the time you would expect the random sample's mean to be within 2.2% of the real mean.
Seriously, if you don't understand basic statistics, don't get involved in this discussion, you're in over your head.
|
I don't care how you try to justify it with statistics - 2000 data points will not give you anywhere near accurate enough data - but we've seen that already.
|
So what you're basically saying is "I don't care if mathematics and statistics says otherwise, my gut feeling is that 2000 data points isn't enough, therefore it isn't"?
You're clearly in over your head.
