3 ms·

So? Are you suggesting polling or putting the NIH funding agenda to a public vote? If not, the fact that there even is a petition, is a pretty good indication

So? Are you suggesting polling or putting the NIH funding agenda to a public vote? If not, the fact that there even is a petition, is a pretty good indication of public interest. Petitions work like internet comments: lurkers (non-signers) far outnumber commenters and posters (signers). One person's signature is an indication that there more people out there who are interested as well.

MostlyStable 3y ago
This sounds logical until you realize that there are petitions with very large numbers of signatures (relative to petitions more broadly), that we also have polling for and that are, from polling, relatively unpopular. If the people who care care a lot, then you can get a sizeable petition (again, relative to petitions generally) even if there aren't a ton of "lurkers" who also support it but aren't signing. And this pattern of "small but very passionate minority vs large and slightly anti- majority" is a relatively common one (or flip the valences). There is probably a correlation between number of signatures and broader appeal, but I would bet that it's a very weak one.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Again, so what? I'm not suggesting this be a major factor. If there's better data indicating that 10,000 people are full of shit, then fine, go with that. But, it's pretty clear in a case like this that the 10,000 people does indicate a much larger interest. Almost half of American households have dogs these days. It's not a big stretch to imagine most of them would want their dogs to live longer and be healthier into old age.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
10,000 self-selected people out of 300,000,000 isn't a good sign of public interest, let alone preference. That is 0.003% of the public. That means 99.997% of the public could oppose it. Maybe for every lurker who supports it, there are thousands of lurkers who oppose it. We just don't know. That's why it's not a good indicator. Proper polling, on the other hand, can be a pretty good indication of public interest. Not that it's necessarily a good option for a government agency to poll for every decision.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Given almost half of American households have dogs these days, and how they're generally treated as family members, the burden of proof falls on you here, and 3 sentences made up 1 minute before you wrote a forum comment doesn't cover it. That is, if you want to argue about it. Look, I'm not suggesting the government poll to find out what's popular at NIH and what's not. I am suggesting that the fact that there is a petition with thousands of signatories indicates interest, and the facts I cited support it. Your opinions lack sufficient foundation to support anything.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    No, I don't think the burden of proof falls on me at all. Especially given all you've presented to support your claim are random bare assertions that don't prove the claim. Indeed, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, which in this case is the petition organizer, or perhaps you. And as we've already examined, we have no way of knowing how representative the petition is. So a poll might be your best option, and sophism in an internet comment probably isn't. That is, if you want to argue about it. Like I already said, I'm not suggesting the government poll to find out what's popular at NIH or not, but two things are for sure: a petition signed by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1% of the population, isn't a good indicator of popular support; and a good poll might be. I mean, let's be serious and honest with ourselves: "thousands" self-selected out of hundreds of millions, billions perhaps (not sure how the survey screened for people out of the country), is nothing. Nothing. It's an emotionally appealing number which is literally within the margin of error. There are thousands who think we should research how earth is flat. There are thousands who believe we should research young-earth creationism. "Thousands" is _nothing_. If all you can get to support your cause, out of hundreds of millions, is "thousands", your cause probably isn't that great, and/or your PR probably isn't that great. 3 million, still less than 1% of the population, would be a better starting point for an "indication" of what they support. "Thousands" is embarrassing.

MostlyStable 3y ago

This sounds logical until you realize that there are petitions with very large numbers of signatures (relative to petitions more broadly), that we also have polling for and that are, from polling, relatively unpopular. If the people who care care a lot, then you can get a sizeable petition (again, relative to petitions generally) even if there aren't a ton of "lurkers" who also support it but aren't signing. And this pattern of "small but very passionate minority vs large and slightly anti- majority" is a relatively common one (or flip the valences). There is probably a correlation between number of signatures and broader appeal, but I would bet that it's a very weak one.

Paul-Craft 3y ago
Again, so what? I'm not suggesting this be a major factor. If there's better data indicating that 10,000 people are full of shit, then fine, go with that. But, it's pretty clear in a case like this that the 10,000 people does indicate a much larger interest. Almost half of American households have dogs these days. It's not a big stretch to imagine most of them would want their dogs to live longer and be healthier into old age.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

10,000 self-selected people out of 300,000,000 isn't a good sign of public interest, let alone preference. That is 0.003% of the public. That means 99.997% of the public could oppose it. Maybe for every lurker who supports it, there are thousands of lurkers who oppose it. We just don't know. That's why it's not a good indicator. Proper polling, on the other hand, can be a pretty good indication of public interest. Not that it's necessarily a good option for a government agency to poll for every decision.

Paul-Craft 3y ago
Given almost half of American households have dogs these days, and how they're generally treated as family members, the burden of proof falls on you here, and 3 sentences made up 1 minute before you wrote a forum comment doesn't cover it. That is, if you want to argue about it. Look, I'm not suggesting the government poll to find out what's popular at NIH and what's not. I am suggesting that the fact that there is a petition with thousands of signatories indicates interest, and the facts I cited support it. Your opinions lack sufficient foundation to support anything.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  No, I don't think the burden of proof falls on me at all. Especially given all you've presented to support your claim are random bare assertions that don't prove the claim. Indeed, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, which in this case is the petition organizer, or perhaps you. And as we've already examined, we have no way of knowing how representative the petition is. So a poll might be your best option, and sophism in an internet comment probably isn't. That is, if you want to argue about it. Like I already said, I'm not suggesting the government poll to find out what's popular at NIH or not, but two things are for sure: a petition signed by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1% of the population, isn't a good indicator of popular support; and a good poll might be. I mean, let's be serious and honest with ourselves: "thousands" self-selected out of hundreds of millions, billions perhaps (not sure how the survey screened for people out of the country), is nothing. Nothing. It's an emotionally appealing number which is literally within the margin of error. There are thousands who think we should research how earth is flat. There are thousands who believe we should research young-earth creationism. "Thousands" is _nothing_. If all you can get to support your cause, out of hundreds of millions, is "thousands", your cause probably isn't that great, and/or your PR probably isn't that great. 3 million, still less than 1% of the population, would be a better starting point for an "indication" of what they support. "Thousands" is embarrassing.