Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 6:27 PM
156 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (4 members, 152 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,700 Year: 2,737/19,786 Month: 819/1,918 Week: 106/301 Day: 24/54 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Author Topic:   Discovery Institute loses one
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 61 of 103 (237911)
08-28-2005 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by sidelined
08-28-2005 2:32 AM


questions
reply moved:

http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=1182&m=2#2

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-28-2005 04:37 AM


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by sidelined, posted 08-28-2005 2:32 AM sidelined has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 62 of 103 (237978)
08-28-2005 12:22 PM


protocols, please
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


  • do you think evolution is the best model currently available for explaining the complexity of life on earth?
  • do you think speciation occurs?
  • do you think natural selection occurs?
  • do you think microevolution happens?
  • do you think macroevolution has happened?
  • do you think there is a controversy in the scientific community?
  • do you think there are legitimate problems with darwinians theory as a whole?
  • do you think that there is more than one explanation that should be taught in public schools?
  • ... universities?
  • do you think that 'intelligent design' has merits as a scientific field of study?
  • do you think that intelligent design offers a better explanation for complexity than darwinian evolution?
  • do you believe in god?
  • do you believe the bible to be the literal/inerrant word of god?
  • do you believe in special creation?
  • do you believe in creation ex-nihilo?

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}}}


Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 12:25 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 5:46 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 69 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 08-29-2005 3:33 PM RAZD has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2173 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 63 of 103 (237979)
08-28-2005 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
08-28-2005 12:22 PM


Re: protocols, please
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 12:22 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 64 of 103 (238066)
08-28-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
08-28-2005 12:22 PM


Re: protocols, please
We need to be careful to develop data that cannot be used against people, and thus we need to have some protocols.

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.

There absolutely needs to be a confidentiality clause up front about the use of the results and any personal information provided.

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.

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.

double-blind is the best way to go.

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.

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.

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?

a good point. (they really need to approve that pnt...)

as a side note, if you change the order of questions like ... You will get different answers.

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.

Putting ID in quotes is also a signal.

quite. no quotes would probably be better.

Personally, I also think this is way overkill on the questions, but has not even addressed the issue of their credentials.

yes, we don't want to scare them off. we should make it fairly simple .. maybe with multiple choice questions?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 12:22 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 5:51 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 7:43 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2173 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 65 of 103 (238068)
08-28-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by arachnophilia
08-28-2005 5:46 PM


Re: protocols, please
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 5:46 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 6:18 PM CK has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 66 of 103 (238076)
08-28-2005 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by CK
08-28-2005 5:51 PM


Re: protocols, please
that would be interesting.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 5:51 PM CK has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 67 of 103 (238092)
08-28-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by arachnophilia
08-28-2005 5:46 PM


Re: protocols, please
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.

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( )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 5:46 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 8:34 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 78 by Monk, posted 08-30-2005 11:51 AM RAZD has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 68 of 103 (238102)
08-28-2005 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
08-28-2005 7:43 PM


Re: protocols, please
(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

sending it to other could serve as a control group, too.

(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( )

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 7:43 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 4275 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 69 of 103 (238334)
08-29-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
08-28-2005 12:22 PM


Re: protocols, please
May I suggest that this question:

do you think evolution is the best model currently available for explaining the complexity of life on earth?

...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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 12:22 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by arachnophilia, posted 08-29-2005 4:16 PM Maxwell's Demon has not yet responded
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 4:37 PM Maxwell's Demon has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 70 of 103 (238343)
08-29-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Maxwell's Demon
08-29-2005 3:33 PM


Re: protocols, please
a good point. complexity is also a word associated with id and arguments like michael behe's.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 08-29-2005 3:33 PM Maxwell's Demon has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 71 of 103 (238350)
08-29-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Maxwell's Demon
08-29-2005 3:33 PM


Re: protocols, please
May I suggest that this question:
...should use the word "diversity" instead of "complexity"?

Problem is that we are testing the claim of DI:

WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE. CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.

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}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 08-29-2005 3:33 PM Maxwell's Demon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 08-29-2005 5:21 PM RAZD has responded

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 4275 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 72 of 103 (238358)
08-29-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
08-29-2005 4:37 PM


Re: protocols, please
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 4:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 8:23 PM Maxwell's Demon has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 73 of 103 (238383)
08-29-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Maxwell's Demon
08-29-2005 5:21 PM


Re: protocols, please
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}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 08-29-2005 5:21 PM Maxwell's Demon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 08-29-2005 9:22 PM RAZD has responded

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 4275 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 74 of 103 (238415)
08-29-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
08-29-2005 8:23 PM


Re: protocols, please
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 PM

This message has been edited by Maxwell's Demon, 08-29-2005 09:32 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 8:23 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 10:22 PM Maxwell's Demon has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 75 of 103 (238441)
08-29-2005 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Maxwell's Demon
08-29-2005 9:22 PM


Re: protocols, please
might a been here?
http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=577&m=1


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 08-29-2005 9:22 PM Maxwell's Demon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 08-29-2005 10:46 PM RAZD has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019