Discovery Institute loses one

reply moved:http://EvC Forum: Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" QuestionaireThis message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-28-2005 04:37 AM

---

אָרַח

We need to be careful to develop data that cannot be used against people, and thus we need to have some protocols.There absolutely needs to be a confidentiality clause up front about the use of the results and any personal information provided.I would suggest some kind of a double blind evaluation process for the actual data: we don't really need to know {who} feels {same\different} but just how many, nor do we need to know {who} is not really a "scientist" (as advertised by DI) but just how many.I also wonder if we shouldn't broaden the scope and include people not on the list but from the same departments (for those working in departments) and run it as a general survey. There are ways to {sort\control} the data so that we can divide {list\non-list} respondants (easier if the questionaires are mailed out), and the information could be more valid if we looked at the possibility of adding people to the list rather than just removing them. The intent is validation eh?as a side note, if you change the order of questions like You will get different answers. Putting ID in quotes is also a signal. Personally, I also think this is way overkill on the questions, but has not even addressed the issue of their credentials.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I can given time provide a web survey that will collect the results but will not identify those answer the questions (on top of assurances to the people who complete it).Scales, tickboxes and the like would be no problem.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Aug-2005 12:30 PM

yes, i whole-heartedly agree. we're not aiming for a smear campaign against reputable scientists. we're trying to determine the accuracy of the infamous "400 scientists disagree" statements DI makes.if 100% of the people on the list, minus davidson, all legitimately should be on it, than we've done nothing but verify DI's statements. (well, assuming they're all scientists...)and that would be ok. disproving a hypothesis is equally as valid as proving it. yes, i agree. but we also need to be somewhat careful -- because we are going to use the data in some form. if it's particularly damaging to DI's credibility, then being able to use figures like "75% of the biologists on the list didn't actually dissent" would be really handy for future debates.we should also allow them to make a statement of some kind that could be creditted to their names. but leave that as entirely (and emphatically) optional. double-blind is the best way to go. i think we should look at that after running the list. first and foremost we're trying to determine the accuracy and internal validity of the list. after that, we can determine that it does not represent the actual scientific community. a good point. (they really need to approve that pnt...) i was just brianstorming, of course. we'll have to hash all of those details out at length, i'm sure, in the other thread. quite. no quotes would probably be better. yes, we don't want to scare them off. we should make it fairly simple .. maybe with multiple choice questions?

---

אָרַח

I would be quite interested to see the use of a scale for one of the question. It could try and gauge how their viewpoints have changed over time. So ... how convinced are they of the merits of ID (and then the same but with evolution) since they signed the statement - More/less/same (but on a 1-10 scale)?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Aug-2005 06:21 PM

that would be interesting.

---

אָרַח

My concern here is twofold:(1) that the survey could be discussed among colleages: if the person determines he is the only one getting it, and knows that his name is on the list, that he will make assumptions that will lead to not answering, while his determining that others are getting the same survey might make him MORE likely to answer(2) running it as a general survey take the {targeting stigma} off the process. sure we are interested in the real opinions of these people, but we should be equally interested in the real opinions of their co-workers.We could have one of the question sets be "are you aware of the {DI full name and website} list of 400 scientists that endorsed this statement{list statement}
Y( ) or N( )
are you one of them?
Y( ) or N( )
whether yes or no above, do you endorse it now?
Y( ) or N( )

sending it to other could serve as a control group, too. we should definitally consider that. how do we choose how else to send it too? and how the confirm that the people on the list are willingly on the list (i would not put fraud above DI).

---

אָרַח

May I suggest that this question: ...should use the word "diversity" instead of "complexity"?It seems to me that more than often the concept of the complexity of life is brought up in connection to abiogenesis, and not just evolution.

a good point. complexity is also a word associated with id and arguments like michael behe's.

---

אָרַח

Problem is that we are testing the claim of DI: Which kind of leaves us tied to the term in question.It might be interesting to try to finess the distinction and see if you get a different answer.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

If that's the case, then saying "evolution" instead of "random mutation and natural selection" might also cause a problem, since many would probably contend that things like sexual selection should get to have a say into issues of diversity and/or complexity as well.Trying to "finess the distinction" in this would probably prove interesting as well.

ahahaaaa, a "finessed" distinction indeed.But,Most consider "natural selection" to include (a) survival of the fittest and (b) sex with the sexiest (providing your survive rage of the dadiest).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ah. But isn't it up to the finessing to find out how many do consider it so? Added by Edit:
I don't remember where, but I'm quite certain I've seen it mentioned as a mechanism in its own right in at least a few different places. You and I might not agree (I'm not quite sure myself since I haven't grasped the subject completely) but that's beyond the point, no?This message has been edited by Maxwell's Demon, 08-29-2005 09:31 PMThis message has been edited by Maxwell's Demon, 08-29-2005 09:32 PM

might a been here?
http://EvC Forum: Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}