Arminius: the question of statistical analysis here, relates to wider a wider scope.
Some of the tangential considerations involve a wide array, if the OP could conceivably be pulled together. Your introducing Leibniz into the formula and then Kant, brought in a question which can not really be solved ontologically, as to whether one, or the other has relevance here.
If, we would follow Leibniz, variable functions would/ could question any sort of equivocal synthesis as suggested by the above breakdown into the 20-80 distribution. Kant would serve here a better purpose, and i am not trying to play linguistic games, only to point to a wider data set, then is used within the confines of ILP.
I brought in the occupy movement, since they have been portrayed as a disaffected and disenfranchised group, more likely to have strong feelings about their place in society vis-a-vis, such issues as the use of machines to replace traditional jobs.
A correlation there, would certainly would not parallel a similar 99-1% breakdown , between those who believe in the issue of whether all machines will replace jobs, i am sure that not all 99% would believe this. The correlation may if, averaged out via a synthetic statistical analysis, would maybe bring the figure more in line closer to an equivocal difference.
My attempt is two, or even three fold.
One, to clarify which methodology and philosophy would be more appropriate in the application
Two, without undermining the notion of 20-80% distribution, only to point to the insufficient ethno-methodology, as per applied statistical analysis -of the ‘Kantian-synthetic’ sort, and more
relevance in terms of Your proper introduction of Leibniz into the scheme, (so Your original
application of Leibniz was correct. However that correctness would undermine the idea that
the least will determine a correct outcome) Although a synthesis of this sort demands a wider
Inquiry, it would not reflect a statistical offset of other variables, such as would occur, if the
difference exceeded that of the analysis per members of the forum.
These variables would be, different values of opinion in different sets, different numbers within the same sets, etc.
If 20% of the occupy movement believed that machines will take over , then we may incorporate (there goes that word again) that with 20% of ilp members, in that case, both, the synthetic (or the non academic) statistic would correspond, resulting in the type of statistical schema, as suggested.
However, if there is a wide divergence, of say less then 99% to more than 1% of the sampled group, a synthetic solution would not work, because the variability of opinions of the occupy movement would need to be factored into the equation.
Some of those variables may include questions dealing with why do disaffected think, in spite of their dissatisfaction that machines are not a threat to their future employ?
Now You may think am working against my own theme, of trying to raise the percentages of those, who may be disaffected and think that machines take over. Not so. Your formula of 20-80 will work on the synthetic level only if, it is narrowed down to a set consisting only of mebers of ilp.
This may have been the reason, whereby we were unable to come to a conclusion as to whether which philosophical approach is more relevant.
As trite as this critique seems, and as fuzzy the set theory involved appears to be, i feel it is of central importance to clarify, even without getting Humboldt, Marcuse, or any other thinker involved. I think language analysis here irrelevant, as not being in the statistical matrix, of determining the methodology, if ever such a study would be taken as relevant, to real social movements, apart from a strictly ad-hoc research into an ‘Ivory-tower’ type of inquiry.
There is some sense of the superfluous here, an excess, a surplus value, and if You feel it goes beyond the scope or intent of Your OP, i would be happy to see a general response.
A sub-set question here would be, ‘how representative are ilp members of the general population?’ I would think this question is again, another variable, dissuading a general ‘synthetic’ solution.
Ultimately, although not needed in any sort of statistical analysis, what would the effect be of the results, of both, the inherent value of holding conventional jobs and, the ethical burden of employers to defer automation to a prior study of employer-employee relations, as they effect the over all social economic picture. There may be such going on, at present, but not to the degree, that it has become common knowledge.
For the third consideration here, i think it’s contingent upon the first two, and , once derived, would have a feedback effect, in case the multi variable schema becomes most determinative.
