Religion

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)

21. They throw around words that don't mean what they think they mean

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 03:52 PM

Jan 2012

Just like you calling this a theory. It isn't a theory. It is a pretty poorly constructed hypothesis which certainly has pre-experiment bias built into it and has been test with poor controls.

I understood things just fine. What have I misunderstood? Are you willing to admit that this is not "scientific evidence" as they claim or a "theory" as you claim? If not, then understand that I am going to point out the misuse of that information.

So I'm just supposed to let people make crappy claims and not say anything about it on a discussion forum? Seems kind of counterproductive to the "discussion" part.

So why are YOU so desperate to defend them?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Queen's study finds religion helps us gain self-control [View all] OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 OP

Nothing like making great leaps of faith in order to... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #1

You are right. There is very little information here about the study itself. cbayer Jan 2012 #2

It�s amazing what you can find if you bother to look. (Isn�t it?) OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #4

+ 1 (nt) mr blur Jan 2012 #3

So this really doesn't show that religion does anything, does it? Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #5

There are so many faults in the construction of this "experiment". MarkCharles Jan 2012 #6

How about a little common sense? OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #8

A little fable perpetuated by religions as to what they CLAIM TO... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #23

Wow! OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #27

I am NOT "incensed", (in fact I don't use incense).... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #28

The convention I learned years ago was the the use of all capitals was reserved for �shouting� OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #29

Again, your "convention" which you learned "years ago" is not MarkCharles Jan 2012 #36

Just a thought here, but once someone has called another person's cbayer Jan 2012 #30

I appreciate how some may feel insulted by descriptions MarkCharles Jan 2012 #44

I don't think you appreciate it at all. It appears your intent is to insult cbayer Jan 2012 #45

That is your opinion of my "intent" but I disagree. Actually, I think MarkCharles Jan 2012 #61

I appreciate your thoughtful response. cbayer Jan 2012 #71

Thank you for a very respectful response, I will continue to read your... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #75

Enjoy your lunch, Mr. Charles. cbayer Jan 2012 #76

Well, religion IS about control, but it's just not SELF control. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #31

We can surely see "evidence" of mental status changes... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #77

Self-control through fear, you mean? mr blur Jan 2012 #34

�Thinking about religion gives people more self-control�� OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #7

I get that that is what they are saying Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #12

I believe that�s why they called it, �preliminary scientific evidence� OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #14

I think that is a vast overclaim, too. Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #15

Wow! OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #17

We read the paragraphs, we were not convinced that there is any... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #24

Considering that they did NOT utilize the "scientific method" at all, it is hardly "scientific" cleanhippie Jan 2012 #32

As MarkCharles correctly pointed out above, there is no information available cbayer Jan 2012 #38

Its the broad-brush assumptions about what the "study" reveals that is bogus. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #40

You really shouldn't question my credentials as a scientists, ch. cbayer Jan 2012 #42

Then you really shouldn't make claims that this study followed the scientific method. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #43

I have made no such claims and have no basis to make such claims. cbayer Jan 2012 #46

I made an observation based on the available info. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #47

I have no idea. They have not yet published their study and there is not information cbayer Jan 2012 #50

Then you can consider my opinion to be preliminary cleanhippie Jan 2012 #53

No cbayer Jan 2012 #54

Uhm, okay then. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #60

To be fair on the researchers... LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #49

I agree. But this is a discussion board. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #52

Of course LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #66

Couldn't the mere process of unscrambling a jumbled sentence, any sentence, pinto Jan 2012 #9

From the OP OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #11

Ah, missed that. Thanks. pinto Jan 2012 #13

So some sentences were familiar and some were not? n/t Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #16

Why are you so desperate? OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #18

Why are you so desperate? Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #19

It�s really not some earth-shattering theory OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #20

They throw around words that don't mean what they think they mean Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #21

�They have test for no other options. Perhaps unscrambling pithy Mark Twain epithets�� OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #22

We know because we read and see no evidence of anything other than a ... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #25

There actually was a control condition: unscrambling of nonreligious phrases LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #70

No, the CONTROL condition would be........ MarkCharles Jan 2012 #73

"Hey, have a nice day. I�m done." That's a good thing. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #37

Good for you for being done. Some *discussions* in this group are really not discussions at all. cbayer Jan 2012 #39

Are you kidding me? Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #63

Oh no, we can't have that. Admonishing the OP for the same thing I was admonished for cleanhippie Jan 2012 #68

Yep. There are frequenters of this group that employ debate *techniques* cbayer Jan 2012 #74

There is an easy solution for this, you know. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #78

I am not saying this to pick on you personally; there are others who do it much more often LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #67

Why is it so difficult to understand that the "simple experiements" did NOT lend ANY credence cleanhippie Jan 2012 #35

The study of religion and its effects is fascinating. Jim__ Jan 2012 #10

And your "evidence" for this is?.... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #26

And your antecedent for "this" is? Jim__ Jan 2012 #33

So "evidence" for you is equal to three authors' written opinions? MarkCharles Jan 2012 #41

The arguments for the statements that I made are quite well-known. Jim__ Jan 2012 #59

Arguments, in life, and in any court of law, and in science are NOT... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #62

Evidence is offered in support of an argument. Jim__ Jan 2012 #65

As often, the claims made go well beyond anything that the study shows LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #48

Good analysis and right on target, imo. cbayer Jan 2012 #51

Funny, that sounds pretty much just like what several of us said. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #55

Doesn't sound remotely like anything several of you have said, imo. cbayer Jan 2012 #57

Well, as I said before, you are entitled to your opinion. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #58

So my statement about unscrambling pithy Twain sayings Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #64

The only difference between what I said and what they said... LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #69

The reporting of the study is the difference to which I refer. cbayer Jan 2012 #72

Thanks. I think this is what I was groping for from a layman's pov. pinto Jan 2012 #56

For those hoping to understand Evolutionary Religious Studies OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #79