Religion vs Science study help

[cursuswalker]

When the number of respondents reaches a specific level, the analysis will begin. As for a 'rebuttal'. I made a mistake while posting here because I have been up for about 30 hours, that section of my post was copied and pasted from an email to an administrator of a forum asking for them to post my survey link.So again, apologies for the gross error.

As for my hypothesis, it is a very, very loose one. It is an exploratory study, so I have no idea how it will turn out, nor do I care to be honest which way the data goes. I am neither religious nor Atheist; however, from the literature I have read, and the studies I have looked at, I believe the evidence suggest that my hypothesis may be correct. Primarily, it is focussed on the psychology of belief and as such is highly theoretical in many cases dealing with theological issues rather than scientific ones.

The Msc I am doing is in Research Methods and statistics, as such, the 'quality' of the study is not so important, what is important is that any mistakes or methodological errors made are addressed in the write up. I only had 3 months to completely re-jig my project as an American University decided to try to charge me for use of a scale in my previous study which was ridiculous. So it is all very last minute, I just have to make do.

Thanks for the feedback!


Mike

Just bookmarking this response in case it is needed later.

[MikeW]

Sorry for the double post.

Having checked the link to rationalskeptic, I am absolutely dismayed that you posted it with such venom highlighting the mistake I made right away, even though I corrected it. I am a student trying to complete his dissertation under difficult circumstances. My work will be marked, if it is 'bad science' it will be marked badly or I will fail. I was simply asking for assistance from the community, asking for people to complete the questionnaire. I didn't expect to have my student project pasted on a highly visible skeptic forum as 'bad science' for all to see.

So thank you for your kindness

[cursuswalker]

Sorry for the double post.

Having checked the link to rationalskeptic, I am absolutely dismayed that you posted it with such venom highlighting the mistake I made right away, even though I corrected it. I am a student trying to complete his dissertation under difficult circumstances. My work will be marked, if it is 'bad science' it will be marked badly or I will fail. I was simply asking for assistance from the community, asking for people to complete the questionnaire. I didn't expect to have my student project pasted on a highly visible skeptic forum as 'bad science' for all to see.

So thank you for your kindness

Well you see there's the whole point. As a scientist your work is SUPPOSED to be subjected to the highest possible level of scrutiny. The "difficult circumstances" you refer to make absolutely NO difference to this whatsoever. The simple fact is that the information you are giving out to potential survey respondents, in the light of your hypothesis, make it clear that, whether knowingly or not, you are attempting to prove a hypothesis and your actions in introducing this survey in the context of this forum can only help for the desired result to be obtained, by encouraging those who agree with you to respond with more enthusiasm.

At the start of this thread you were:

a post graduate student currently performing research into the psychology of religion for my Msc with the Open University.

And the purpose of your research was:

looking at levels of open-mindedness between those who have religious belief and those who do not. It is a rebuttal to the new atheist movement

After the scrutuny of this thread that appears to have changed to doing an MSc in:

Research Methods and statistics

And the purpose of the research has changed a little:

as such, the 'quality' of the study is not so important, what is important is that any mistakes or methodological errors made are addressed in the write up

The point is that if they are NOT then your research could go on to add to the public's image of a group that I belong to, seemingly with methodological errors that would not justify such conclusions.

So, to summarise, what you call "venom" I call fair and open criticism among a target group.

By all means try to establish that atheists are more closed minded than theists. But make damned sure your methods are beyond reproach in trying to do so.

[MikeW]

OK

[treegod]

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

Look forward to seeing it

[cursuswalker]

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

Look forward to seeing it

I look forward to scrutinising it.

[MikeW]

lol

[wolf560]

Completed the questionnaire... I saw the need for a 'neutral answer' actually and was forced to choose a 'slightly for' or a 'slightly against' instead of a non-committal answer.

Not what I expected but survey rarely are anyway I suppose

Hope it helps

[Ghostrider]

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 respondents

Mike, somebody should have warned you before asking druids for their opinions.
Don't be alarmed, this is normal .

ROFL

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....

Hi Lily! I disagree..
Me thinks that most, if not all, scientists BELIEVE the result of their research to be true or fact. However.. this is only TRUE until it is 'proven' incorrect by another set of trials / definitions / tests.
Therefore the 'truth' is something which is 'believed to be fact' until another version of 'truth' is generally accepted!

At least... that's what I believe

As for:

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

Look forward to seeing it

I look forward to scrutinising it.

this is also 'normal' Mike!
As Druids, and most Scientists, we 'believe' in the power of discussion and questioning. After all.. if we just accept the 'truth' as something that is fed to us as a faity tale ( thanks Lily! ), we would not have anything to THINK about. And me thinks that there is no BELIEF without proper THOUGHT.
If you 'believe' in 'stuff' because it is fed to you, you do not BELIEVE, you COPY.

[cursuswalker]

As Druids, and most Scientists, we 'believe' in the power of discussion and questioning. After all.. if we just accept the 'truth' as something that is fed to us as a faity tale ( thanks Lily! ), we would not have anything to THINK about. And me thinks that there is no BELIEF without proper THOUGHT.
If you 'believe' in 'stuff' because it is fed to you, you do not BELIEVE, you COPY.

^^^
This

Any person with a modicum of wisdom knows that anything they believe is provisional upon the non-discovery of contradictory evidence.

Thus I do not think gods exist UNTIL I see convincing evidence that they do. And I beleive my laptop works according to the principles of quentum theory, until such time as it is demonstrated to actually be operated by teeny tiny goblins.

[Ghostrider]

I have PERSONAL reasons to believe there is MORE than just scientifically proven 'stuff'
But, it IS personal and I see no reason to try and 'convince' others of that 'fact'. For me it is sufficient to believe and that is that.

Each to his own.

[Arth Frown]

I have PERSONAL reasons to believe there is MORE than just scientifically proven 'stuff'
But, it IS personal and I see no reason to try and 'convince' others of that 'fact'. For me it is sufficient to believe and that is that.

Each to his own.

I could not agree more.

[cursuswalker]

I have PERSONAL reasons to believe there is MORE than just scientifically proven 'stuff'
But, it IS personal and I see no reason to try and 'convince' others of that 'fact'. For me it is sufficient to believe and that is that.

Each to his own.

And so long as NONE of those beliefs are used, in any way, to justify harming others who do not share them, they are entirely your concern.

It goes without saying that there are more truths than have been found scientifically. What does not go without saying is how we might discover what they actually are.

[Ghostrider]

And so long as NONE of those beliefs are used, in any way, to justify harming others who do not share them, they are entirely your concern.

Exactly!

It goes without saying that there are more truths than have been found scientifically. What does not go without saying is how we might discover what they actually are.

Fully agree. That's the beauty of the 'truth': it's as flexible as life itself, no matter how much we try to regimentalise and classify it. Today's Truth is tomorrow's folly. This does not only aply to science, but also to personal beliefs.