Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution?

Sorry, the term "science forum" should NEER be used "loosely." If a thread is put in an inappropriate forum, it's up to the thread creator to bring it up.Maybe putting this thread in this forum was a good decision, maybe it was a bad decision. It's usually why we ask people to clarify for us which forum they want it in before we promote it.I don't know the reasons why the thread wound up here, but it is in a science forum, for better or for worse. So we'll deal with it that way.Hope that clarifies the "official" position on how these things go. It's up to the thread creator to direct the admins. Otherwise, it's up to an admin's "best guess" on where the discussion will lead. A notoriously difficult task.Abe: Changed to Admin mode. Grr...This message has been edited by AdminBen, Thursday, 2005/10/13 08:22 PM

---

Well, two comments.First of all, we got here because of an off-topic discussion about "The Fall." The call for evidence was in reference to that.As for why this topic was put in a science forum in the first place? I'm not sure, it was requested. But the implication is that we're asking questions that are data-driven. It's a question that's addressable through scientific means. Social science, cognitive anthropology, even neuroscience may play roles in getting answers. Like I said, the implication is that speculations are all nice and dandy, but let's try and make some testable hypotheses so that we can go beyond mere speculation. Honestly, as someone who has been involved in psychology.... sounds like a great idea to me. It's definitely a great place to start. Why make up speculation based on nothing? At least start from some real data, and try and figure out what those answers "really mean."To summarize, the implication is that the questions should ultimately be addressed in a testable way. Arguments that use actual data to support them are given precedence over "mere speculations." And if a claim is made (for example, about psychological trends in general populations or even specific populations), there should be evidence backing up such claims. That is the implication of having this topic here.

---

RR,If you want to discuss this, it's probably best to open a new topic.To dismiss these kinds of methodologies out of hand is unwarranted. It may not be obvious how you can scrutinize and improve the validity of surveys, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. The point (as with any technique) is to recognize the limitations, to see how you can try to control them, and to see how that limits the validity and generalizability of your conclusions. By the way, Mod's article talks about some of this stuff.If you're interested, I'd encourage you to open a PNT on it. We can put it in "Is it Science?"

---

RR,You're really far away from establishing the conclusion you're trying to. There's lots more to be said. And this is a nice, clean topic that easily spins off into another thread. It's already been suggested that you do so. Now let's make it really clear.If you want to pursue this, take it to a new topic.Thanks.

---

Robin,I replied to your message at
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution -->http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The ConsecutionAdminBen

---