Says diynots prominent scaremonger.
- Status
Says diynots prominent scaremonger.
Hitler did not win an election outright, his rise to power was certainly not democratic. ( Read up on the night of the long knives. )
Juries should convict or not, on the facts presented to them, via unbiased/impartial viewpoints.
OK, let us ask them.................. Is there a God?...............Which answer would be right or wrong.
You would need to ask a fact based question, say a maths question, to know the result for certain.
Again, as Brexit is a popular topic on here.....
, right or wrong is subjective ,with many heated views.
Ok.
You do realise that in a court case, one side is lying. How does a jury know which?
Then, do think perhaps that is what I meant - a factual question?
Yes but one day they will be proved right or wrong.Again, as Brexit is a popular topic on here.....
Anyway, this is all irrelevant.
You said the majority is right because it is the majority. That is not necessarily the case.
I'm not saying it's right, but I've always found the 'wisdom of the crowd' does tend to be a factor, the 'wisdom of the crowd' is a factor in elections/referendums, and historically it as been proven correct.
Duck my old boots! filly admits that the lynch mob is his barometer for reason and truth.
FFS.
Duck my old boots! filly admits that the lynch mob is his barometer for reason and truth.
FFS.
The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, published in 2004, is a book written by James Surowiecki about the aggregation of information in groups, resulting in decisions that, he argues, are often better than could have been made by any single member of the group. The book presents numerous case studies and anecdotes to illustrate its argument, and touches on several fields, primarily economics and psychology.
The opening anecdote relates Francis Galton's surprise that the crowd at a county fair accurately guessed the weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged (the average was closer to the ox's true butchered weight than the estimates of most crowd members).[1][2]
The book relates to diverse collections of independently deciding individuals, rather than crowd psychology as traditionally understood. Its central thesis, that a diverse collection of independently deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better than individuals or even experts, draws many parallels with statistical sampling; however, there is little overt discussion of statistics in the book.
Its title is an allusion to Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, published in 1841.[3]
Funnily enough others don't see it that way...
US won't rely on UK for Covid vaccine safety tests
"House speaker says UK system is not on a par with US’s ‘very stringent rules’ about vaccines"
“We have very stringent rules about the Food and Drug Administration here about clinical trials, timing, number of people etc, so that when a drug is approved by the FDA that it’s safe and efficacious, then it has the trust of the American people,”
“My concern is that the UK’s system for that kind of judgment is not on par with ours."
Do you still claim that you KNOW that corners aren't cut in the UK?
Because history would suggest otherwise!
I've got some Tulip bulbs here. Will you pay me twenty thou apiece?
fillys mantra....Innocent or guilty, who cares! LYNCH HIM!
E
EddieM
FDA stringent 
Not judging by the sh*t they allow in their food and the amount of food poisoning cases the US has.
Doesn't matter anyway, only a small percentage of yanks would trust any vaccine.
Not judging by the sh*t they allow in their food and the amount of food poisoning cases the US has.
Doesn't matter anyway, only a small percentage of yanks would trust any vaccine.
Well, if the UK comes up with the first working vaccine, we won't have to worry about making enough to supply the septics then.
It's all good in the 'hood.
Yes, we're sticking to our rules which require 10,000 or 20,000 participants in the phase III trials. The US has more stringent rules requiring 30,000. AstraZenica is testing 50,000 in the current plans over multiple arms and nations.
That's not saying we're cutting corners. It's the same shorter process that we've always followed.
E
EddieM
So we test ~0.03% of the population as opposed to ~0.001% in the US
With Donald at the helm, pushing for the vaccines to be approved quickly, what could go wrong.
Always followed?
Ah yes, that's why the UK approved thalidomide whilst the US banned it...
And why the UK carried on importing 'paid for' plasma when the US had banned it for use, and it was known that the process of preparing the product was liable to cross contamination...
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 18243
- General Discussion
