[Allan S.]

Hey all,
I was browsing through the 'Assorted quotes' section of the wiki (link included), and i saw a bold claim:
“ 52 Percent Of The British Public Think The Moon Landings Were Faked, Claims Survey ”
I'll also leave a link to this at the end of the post. In the same survey, 12% of Brits supposedly believe in witches and wizardry. There is also 8% that believes in fairies and 5% that thinks there are DRAGONS around. (There's way more, but you can check the site for yourself)

The point I'm trying to make, is that we should check the sources we use on our wiki (yknow, the place with all of our well-researched info?), because if we're trying to find out the truth for ourselves, we should at least look at all the info here. As it turns out, the reason for these absurd stats, are because of the sample size (aka, the amount of people who took the survey). It was a mere 1003, yet the quote claims 52% of the British public believes this.

This is not an attack against the mods on this site, but just a reminder to always stay critical!

https://wiki.tfes.org/Assorted_Quotations
https://www.iflscience.com/space/52-percent-of-the-british-public-think-the-moon-landings-were-faked-claims-survey/

[Allan S.]

Sorry if this wasn't the right place on the forum for this, i didn't really know where else

[Tom Bishop]

That's a pretty common size for a survey.

The margin of error for 1000 randomly selected people is only 3.2% - https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/references/sample-size-surveys

You can quickly see from the table that results from a survey with only 10 random participants are not reliable. The margin of error in this case is roughly 32%. This means that if you found, for example, that 6 out of your 10 participants (60%) had a fear of heights, then the actual proportion of the population with a fear of heights could vary by ±32%. In other words, the actual proportion could be as low as 28% (60 - 32) and as high as 92% (60 + 32). With a range that large, your small survey isn't saying much.

If you increase the sample size to 100 people, your margin of error falls to 10%. Now if 60% of the participants reported a fear of heights, there would be a 95% probability that between 50 and 70% of the total population have a fear of heights. Now you're getting somewhere. If you want to narrow the margin of error to ±5%, you have to survey 500 randomly-selected participants. The bottom line is, you need to survey a lot of people before you can start having any confidence in your results.

So that is suggesting that number of people can be confident. And considering that the research agency in the original link for the claim only uses accredited researchers, claims 20 years of experience, and claims to work professionally with businesses and government agencies to provide them reliable data, I will opt to side with them that they know how to research.

Also, a lot of people believe in things like magic. Not that surprising. Maybe you need to talk to people more before making assumptions.

[Pete Svarrior]

As it turns out, the reason for these absurd stats, are because of the sample size (aka, the amount of people who took the survey). It was a mere 1003, yet the quote claims 52% of the British public believes this.

You immediately reveal yourself to know nothing about statistical surveys. Where, then, did that brazen confidence of yours come from? Is it because IFLScience told you what to think?

Here, are a few articles for you to use as a starting point, in addition to Tom's:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/
https://tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-choose-a-sample-size/
https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/guides/statistical-significance/determine-sample-size/

If you end up finding the subject interesting, it should at least help you identify some questions to explore.

That aside, I propose that we shouldn't be quoting IFLScience on this. They're a clickfarm of dubious quality, and contains obvious errors (claims about sample size which inspired our friend above, citing the Daily Mash [a British equivalent of The Onion] as a source, etc). This survey in particular has been covered by more reputable media, e.g. the Daily Mirror.

[jack44556677]

but just a reminder to always stay critical!

We completely agree, though you must always work to avoid being presumptively incredulous (or credulous).

Incredulity, like skepticism, is valuable in moderation and sophistry in excess.

Have you ever heard that the truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction is obliged to possibilities?

I know it sounds absolutely impossible, and you are right to be skeptical but I've met them - and it's true.

Did you know that sir arthur conan doyle (author of sherlock holmes) was a staunch believer in fairies and a member of an exclusive fairy club with much of the aristocracy at the time.  Britain has a very long history with this nonsense - just look at the lord of the rings for god's sake.  This is a country that many of its citizens are taught was historically ruled/supported by an honest to goodness wizard named merlin.  Did you know that dragonslayer is the first last name in the history of mankind? Oxford did!

As for the moon landing, it might help to consider the enduring hard on britain still has and fosters in its citizens against its (former, but not in their hearts) rebel colony.  The brits were skeptical at the time ('69) and a lot of those views persisted and grew in a way that was not allowed in the US.

[Tom Bishop]

The Mirror looks like it might be a better reference for this. I went ahead and changed the quote on the page to:

“ Moon landing celebrates 47th anniversary but 52% of Brits don't believe it really happened ”
                  —The Mirror (Source)

Edit: I thought it was called Daily Mirror recently. I'm not sure if they just changed their name, but I went with The Mirror as stated on their about us page - https://www.mirror.co.uk/about-us/

[Pete Svarrior]

It's a British newspaper thing, one I don't entirely understand. The Mirror is an umbrella which publishes the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror in print, but their online publications are branded as just "The Mirror". It's analogous to e.g. the Daily Mail, which publishes their online stuff under the name "the Mail Online". People commonly still use print names to refer to those (like I did above without really thinking about it), and as far as I understand, either title would be considered acceptable.

[Kangaroony]

LOL...

"52 Percent Of The British Public Think The Moon Landings Were Faked, Claims Survey".

The sample size was a mere 0.0015 percent of the UK population, which means it's statistically
impossible to extrapolate the figure of 52% to the entire British public.

Strangely, in surveys in the US, similar polls show that only about 5 or 6 percent of the public
subscribes to the moon-hoax theory, former NASA chief historian Roger D. Launius said in 2019.

[Tom Bishop]

The margin of error for 1000 randomly selected people is only 3.2%. See the chart and links in the third and fourth posts of this thread.

[Pete Svarrior]

The sample size was a mere 0.0015 percent of the UK population, which means it's statistically
impossible to extrapolate the figure of 52% to the entire British public.

We only just finished discussing the statistical relevancy of a study of that sample size, and backed it with credible sources. If you'd like to disagree with them, I'd recommend reading them first (skipping that step was your primary mistake!), and then forming a coherent response that addresses their core point.

Unfortunately, "LOL I DON'T BELIEVE THIS XD" is not an appropriate response in the upper fora. Your ignorance of statistics is not relevant here.

[ichoosereality]

Sample size is indeed a key aspect of such a survey.  But as or more important is how the sample was constructed. The Mirror is a tabloid.  Their readers obviously are looking for tabloid style stories.  If the sample was drawn even largely let alone entirely from from Mirror subscribers, it would be very wrong to claim it was representative of all UK residents.

[stack]

Another British tabloid, the Express, had a similar poll from its readers back in 2019. "Out of 8,352 votes, 5,089 (61 percent) said the landings actually happened."

[Pete Svarrior]

Sample size is indeed a key aspect of such a survey.  But as or more important is how the sample was constructed. The Mirror is a tabloid.  Their readers obviously are looking for tabloid style stories.  If the sample was drawn even largely let alone entirely from from Mirror subscribers, it would be very wrong to claim it was representative of all UK residents.

Have you considered finding out who performed the study, and whether or not it had anything to do with the Mirror's readership? This is addressed in the article you forgot to read.

Hell, let's take it half a step back. Have you considered that the Mirror might not be the original source of this study, given that in this very thread we discussed which of the many reports covering it we should use in the Wiki? Let me guess, you forgot to read the thread too.

Did you exercise any critical thought at all before just making up an explanation on the spot and proudly announcing it to everyone as something that merits serious consideration?

[ichoosereality]

Sample size is indeed a key aspect of such a survey.  But as or more important is how the sample was constructed. The Mirror is a tabloid.  Their readers obviously are looking for tabloid style stories.  If the sample was drawn even largely let alone entirely from from Mirror subscribers, it would be very wrong to claim it was representative of all UK residents.

Have you considered finding out who performed the study, and whether or not it had anything to do with the Mirror's readership? This is addressed in the article you forgot to read.

No.  The posts on this page were about sample size.  I merely pointed out that sample construction is also very important.
My only comment about the survey itself was prefaced appropriately by a bold IF which you quoted but do not seem to understand.

[Pete Svarrior]

No.  The posts on this page were about sample size.

Right. So you didn't read the thread.

My only comment about the survey itself was prefaced appropriately by a bold IF

Right. So you are making shit up on the spot, and you didn't read the article.

You are expected to read before you speak. If you can't do that, please do not post here. There are plenty of social media out there where you can just fart out opinions without engaging with conflicting views, or (as is the case here) reality.

[scomato]

This is a better documented sample of flat earth believers, in Brazil.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1131128/flat-earth-brazil/

of 2,086 respondents, 7% held flat earth belief. 3% said they didn't know. Extrapolated to the whole country that's still 11 million flat earthers. According to Brazilian articles it's because of strict religious fundamentalism.

The whole reason they believe that the Earth is flat is because the bible says:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

The belief that gravity is caused by a universal upwards acceleration at 1g or 5.8m/s would probably be rejected by religion-based flat earthers.

[Pete Svarrior]

This is a better documented sample of flat earth believers, in Brazil.

That's not what this thread is about, and there is already a thread about that study in FEM.

[jimster]

What is the significance of 52% thinking the moon landings were fake?

What is the significance of a vast majority thinking the earth is round?

https://www.yahoo.com/now/three-in-100-britons-think-the-earth-is-flat-143259242.html
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/flat-earthery-british-style/

[Kangaroony]

That aside, I propose that we shouldn't be quoting IFLScience on this. They're a clickfarm of dubious quality...

IFLScience is certainly not a "clickfarm of dubious quality".  The majority of its writers are holders
of science degrees; Masters, Bachelors, PhDs etc.  One of the important aims of the site is to make
the sciences more accessible to the lay person.  One of my compatriots who writes for the site,
professor Stephen Luntz, graduated from the University of Melbourne with degrees in science
(physics major) and arts (English Literature and the History and Philosophy of Science), followed
by a Graduate Diploma in Science Communication from the Australian National University.

The quality of its reporting far outstrips the low tabloid quality of the UK Mirror, which also reported
that 64% of its readers did not believe dinosaurs existed!

Which of course, by extension, means that their alleged 52% of Apollo non-believers is pure nonsense.
Maybe it'd be advisable to amend the FE Wiki accordingly in order to maintain its integrity?

[Pete Svarrior]

IFLScience is certainly not a "clickfarm of dubious quality".  The majority of its writers are holders
of science degrees; Masters, Bachelors, PhDs etc.

Yes, that's exactly why they cite the Daily Mash as their source. The quality of the article speaks for itself, and I encourage you to approach your sources more critically.

One of my compatriots who writes for the site,
professor Stephen Luntz, graduated from the University of Melbourne with degrees in science
(physics major) and arts (English Literature and the History and Philosophy of Science), followed
by a Graduate Diploma in Science Communication from the Australian National University.

Ah, so just slightly lower in the ranks of academia than me, then. Excellent, I guess my posts here will now automatically meet your standards for excellence, regardless of their content. After all, I hold some titles!

Why did you call him a "professor", by the way? Were you just misusing the title due to your lack of awareness?

The quality of its reporting far outstrips the low tabloid quality of the UK Mirror, which also reported
that 64% of its readers did not believe dinosaurs existed!

Why are you attributing the study they're citing to them, directly? What makes you think it has anything to do with the Mirror's readers? Have you read the article? Do you understand how mainstream reporting on studies works?

Which of course, by extension, means that their alleged 52% of Apollo non-believers is pure nonsense.

Your incredulity alone is no reason to dismiss the pollsters' findings. Then again, you seem to like to dismiss things you personally dislike as "utter nonsense". This only reveals you to be an anti-scientific hack, and does not make your point for you.

Maybe it'd be advisable to amend the FE Wiki accordingly in order to maintain its integrity?

No, we will not be editing the Wiki to indicate that you personally don't like a fairly representative poll. A poll that was also reported on by a source you do like (IFLScience). You haven't even bothered to read about this piece of research, or any discussion that surrounded it here. Stop spamming the forum.