Religion

MarkCharles

(2,261 posts)

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

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 07:46 PM

Jan 2012

very poorly constructed "experiment", one that does not follow any of the basic tenets of what must be screened in and screened out for possible other variables in the observations.

We also see no evidence that the observers were unbiased in what they were observing. That is a fatal flaw, in the conduct of any experiment to "prove" or disprove an hypothesis. Does the expression "double blind" mean anything to you with regard to conducting scientific tests to prove one hypothesis or another?

Also, of note, there was no "placebo" or "null set" involved in this test. If it had been, we might find that some of the participants who were younger did better than those who were older, etc. This experiment was NOT science. Please try not to pretend it is anything other than NOT science.

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