X-Message-Number: 27829
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Squeezing even more information from my surveys
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 14:14:38 +0200

On 8 Apr 2006, at 06:58,  wrote:

>   There were 29 agnostics and 60 atheists, nearly
> 79% of the respondents. Although about as many
> females as males were atheist or agnostic the
> females were more evenly split between atheist or
> agnostic (one more agnostic than atheist) whereas
> the male atheists outnumbered male agnostics by
> more than 2 to 1.

Not sig.


> Nearly half of the atheists
> thought science would allow people to live 200
> years in good health in less than 40 years, whereas
> less than a quarter of the agnostics had this
> opinion. (

NS


> Are agnostics greater skeptics than
> atheists?) About a third of the agnostics gave
> cryonics a 10% or less chance of working and
> about a tenth gave cryonics a 90% or greater
> chance of working. By contrast, about a sixth of
> the atheists gave cryonics a 10% or less chance
> of working and about a third gave cryonics a
> 90% or greater chance of working.

NS with unpartitioned data.

>
>
>     There is more information that can be "mined" from
> my surveys, I am sure, and I would be interested
> to hear any observations that others discover by
> using my meta-surveys. (As yet I have heard nothing.)

There are tools specifically developed for exploratory data analysis.  
Ad-hoc methods are less likely to reveal important relationships and  
more likely to yield relationships that are due to chance  
fluctuations in the data. Preparing data for processing with such  
tools is more likely to be productive than application of ad-hoc  
methods.


dss


David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27829