Nico wrote:Mike, somebody should have warned you before asking druids for their opinions.
Don't be alarmed, this is normal .
My beliefs would not have been very different if I had been raised by a different set of parents. *
Lily wrote:I wonder whether Mike posted this in proper natural or social science fora, where he might get even more feedback on this study design... and a broader base of respondentsNico wrote:Mike, somebody should have warned you before asking druids for their opinions.
Don't be alarmed, this is normal .
Serpentia... believing in science is impossible... well unless you choose insted of understanding it yourself, to have it fed to you like a fairy tale....
Lily wrote: believing in science is impossible... well unless you choose insted of understanding it yourself, to have it fed to you like a fairy tale....
Lily wrote:*cough* ... if not having studied science makes you somehow unqualified to discuss science beyond using a tea kettle / makes you a believer... how does not having studied theologiy make you (or any religionist arguing for their point) make you more qualified for discussing religion beyond, erm, eating a host, for example?
MikeW wrote:Cursuswalker: Thanks for posting it elsewhere. Is there any chance you could give me a link so I could take a look?
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 20295.html
But please be aware that your methodology is seriously flawed if you want accurate survey results. Not the survey itself (apart from question 10) but the fact that you are revealing your desired outcome to those participating in the survey. You sohludn't even really be revealing your hypothesis.
The reason for this is very simple: As a member of the "new atheist movement" I knew that you were attempting to prove me more closed minded than non-atheists while I was doing the survey. This will inevitably affect my responses. This is not dishonesty. It is just an inevitable result of that knowledge.I should stress that the survey requires no scientific knowledge, in fact if anyone is not trained in a scientific discipline, it would really help me if they took the survey. Thanks.
that does not mean it should be any less rigorous in method, did you discuss your strategy for data collection with your supervisor?MikeW wrote:It's for my dissertation project so doubt it would get published in a journal, but I will post an online version of it for you all to look at when I'm finished .
MikeW wrote:Hi Everyone. Thank you for great responses, and to those who have taken the time so far to take the survey thank you so much.Just to raise a few points:
1) I have posted this same survey to many atheist and scientific forums as well as meeting with focus groups.
2) The user who stated my explanation of my survey as 'bad science'. First of all, using the word 'hypothesis' is a far more succinct way to describe the corrections you made. Everything you stated as a correction is implied by that word. Secondly, I take your point about mentioning my hypothesis before the questionnaire is taken. It may result in participants attempting to answer with that in mind. I've edited my initial post. I;m quite tired having posted this to over 40 sites so far.
It is a rebuttal to the new atheist movement
In law, rebuttal is a form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party. By analogy the same term is used in politics and public affairs to refer to the informal process by which statements, designed to refute or negate specific arguments put forward by opponents, are deployed in the media.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest