yrreg's atheist studies. Good example of bad science.

[RandFan]

Before the ancient Greek philosophers the mechanism to progress human understanding consisted largely of simply observing the natural world, formulating ideas and trial and error. This lead to contradictory ideas and wasn't very effective.

We have since learned that mere observation isn't enough. Humans are subject to error and more importantly to confirmation bias. It's not enough to sit back and observe. It's not enough to conduct an experiment (will atheists act in anger if provoked?) One needs to control for one's bias.

If yrreg truly is studying atheists in any meaningful way, and I seriously doubt that, then he would conduct his experiments with a control group. Ask the exact same questions in different forums. Including a theist forum. It might be a good idea to include a Buddhist forum and others.

But let's assume that he is in fact doing that. Is his study group large enough to produce any meaningful data and has he structured his experiment in such a way as to expect meaningful results?

I'm guessing he won't be forthcoming though I would be happy to discuss it with him.

Finally, having watched a number of experiments conducted on bonobos and chimps it's obvious that the researchers would love to talk to the subjects and have a conversation. Clearly the ability to interact with one's subjects is enhanced by communication. I have participated in scientific studies while I was at the University of Utah and those involved a significant number of questions.

"Are you angry at god because you are an atheist?" Strikes me as meaningless exercise but I'll confess I'm not an expert and would be happy to be shown wrong.

My question is, can one conduct scientifically valid and fruitful sociological studies by asking silly and presumptive questions in an Internet forum?

I'm guessing no, in part for the reasons stated, but I would like to know what others think, theists and atheists alike.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by RandFan

My question is, can one conduct scientifically valid and fruitful sociological studies by asking silly and presumptive questions in an Internet forum?

I doubt it, but then I’m a skeptic and an agnostic.

[Silentknight]

No, he's trying to sound scientific and lend legitimacy to his obvious trolling by claiming it's part of a "study" in much the same way creationists and truthers claim to be doing real science, when all they're really doing is lazily bitching and moaning about their pet peeves. It saves them the trouble of doing anything that involves actual work. The fact that they can't even bothered to look up simple definitions of words says a lot about the depth of the research they put into their studies.

"I'm an activist and a revolutionary! Look, I'm posting online! That counts, right?"

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Silentknight

No, he's trying to sound scientific and lend legitimacy to his obvious trolling by claiming it's part of a "study" in much the same way creationists and truthers claim to be doing real science...

Funny, I just finished watching Nova's documentary on the Dover Trial. Not even science light.

[Darth Rotor]

Quote:

yrreg's atheist studies. Good example of bad science.

Rand, your title pithily described all you needed to say. That you chose to expound means no pith nom for you.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Before the ancient Greek philosophers the mechanism to progress human understanding consisted largely of simply observing the natural world, formulating ideas and trial and error. This lead to contradictory ideas and wasn't very effective.

Paris tried to get Helen to be his bride. Error.

Quote:

We have since learned that mere observation isn't enough. Humans are subject to error and more importantly to confirmation bias. It's not enough to sit back and observe. It's not enough to conduct an experiment (will atheists act in anger if provoked?) One needs to control for one's bias.

Could you PM this to articulete?

Quote:

If yrreg truly is studying atheists in any meaningful way, and I seriously doubt that, then he would conduct his experiments with a control group. Ask the exact same questions in different forums. Including a theist forum. It might be a good idea to include a Buddhist forum and others.

I am beginning to giggle now.

Quote:

But let's assume that he is in fact doing that. Is his study group large enough to produce any meaningful data and has he structured his experiment in such a way as to expect meaningful results?

Rand, yrreg isn't doing just that. Evidence? His posts here on the forum. Yes, I have read a sufficient stool sample to come to that conclusion.

Quote:

I'm guessing he won't be forthcoming though I would be happy to discuss it with him.

I'll guess likewise.

Quote:

Finally, having watched a number of experiments conducted on bonobos and chimps it's obvious that the researchers would love to talk to the subjects and have a conversation. Clearly the ability to interact with one's subjects is enhanced by communication. I have participated in scientific studies while I was at the University of Utah and those involved a significant number of questions.

Was one of them "Are you angry at me because I have a larger brain" as a question to the monkey?

Quote:

"Are you angry at god because you are an atheist?" Strikes me as meaningless exercise but I'll confess I'm not an expert and would be happy to be shown wrong.

It assumes that an atheist must, by definition be a fallen believer in God. I don't think there's another way to "get there from here."

Quote:

My question is, can one conduct scientifically valid and fruitful sociological studies by asking silly and presumptive questions in an Internet forum?

Not bloody likely, and more to the point, it is highly unlikely that much of any useful study can be made by asking questions on an internet forum.

Quote:

I'm guessing no, in part for the reasons stated, but I would like to know what others think, theists and atheists alike.

What's a theist? Did you call yourself one when you were a Mormon?

DR

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Rand, your title pithily described all you needed to say. That you chose to expound means no pith nom for you.

<snip>

DR

Pith Nazi.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Rand, your title pithily described all you needed to say. That you chose to expound means no pith nom for you.

Paris tried to get Helen to be his bride. Error.

Could you PM this to articulete?

I am beginning to giggle now.

Rand, yrreg isn't doing just that. Evidence? His posts here on the forum. Yes, I have read a sufficient stool sample to come to that conclusion.

I'll guess likewise.

Was one of them "Are you angry at me because I have a larger brain" as a question to the monkey?

It assumes that an atheist must, by definition be a fallen believer in God. I don't think there's another way to "get there from here."

Not bloody likely, and more to the point, it is highly unlikely that much of any useful study can be made by asking questions on an internet forum.

What's a theist? Did you call yourself one when you were a Mormon?

Yes! And no pith for you either.

[Cavemonster]

yeth

[slingblade]

Meh, I'm just waiting for him to come over for guilt-free, libertine, mutual masturbation. What times we'll have.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Yes! And no pith for you either.

Aye. Let us wallow in our pithlessness, just short of renal failure.

DR

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

What's a theist?

That is actually a very pertinent question. I know I have ranted about this before, but I find the categories of theist and atheist to be almost useless for developing stereotypes. Might as well set up psychological profiles for people who put their right shoe on first vs. people who start with the left.

However, lumping all atheists into the same class for various arguments about an "atheist worldview" seems to be very popular these days for many people, here in this forum and in the U.S. as a whole (I can't accurately say how it appears outside the U.S.) on both sides of the various issues. This may be due to the fact that atheists as a group are fairly small in number (again, at least in the U.S.), and it might not seem to be worth the effort to break them down by what they actually feel/know/do.

So to answer Darth's question, a theist is someone who believes in one or more gods. That's it; that's all I or anyone else can rightfully say. It has the same value and accuracy as stating that atheists do not believe in any god(s).

Meh.

[RandFan]

On the other hand, if yrreg is really only interested in attention then he's sure got and with very little effort.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by RandFan

But let's assume that he is in fact doing that. Is his study group large enough to produce any meaningful data and has he structured his experiment in such a way as to expect meaningful results?

The results speak for themselves.

Q How many posters in the atheist sexual Liberace thread is he responding to?

A The one which appears to support his a priori assumption.

That's how science is done, isn't it?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The results speak for themselves.

Q How many posters in the atheist sexual Liberace thread is he responding to?

A The one which appears to support his a priori assumption.

That's how science is done, isn't it?

Sort of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, eh?

Say. . . .does yrreg have a gun?

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Say. . . .does yrreg have a gun?

If he does, he probably feels guilty about shooting it. Or he's angry that he doesn't get to shoot the people he wants to shoot.

[yy2bggggs]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Sort of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, eh?

Not as I understand it. The fallacy is more cherry picking... a form of Morton's demon.

[Beerina]

We can also grapple with the horns directly, of course.


If a god existed who was, more or less, as Christians portray him, then yes, we would have every right to be angry at it for sticking us in a universe where 9 year olds can get kidnapped and raped, then wrapped in plastic and given a teddy bear to comfort them (how lovely) while they are buried alive.

So ya, a god who lets that happen is one sick S.O.B. indeed. One is ethically bound to be disgusted and disturbed by such a god.

[Yubi]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

That is actually a very pertinent question. I know I have ranted about this before, but I find the categories of theist and atheist to be almost useless for developing stereotypes. Might as well set up psychological profiles for people who put their right shoe on first vs. people who start with the left.

However, lumping all atheists into the same class for various arguments about an "atheist worldview" seems to be very popular these days for many people, here in this forum and in the U.S. as a whole (I can't accurately say how it appears outside the U.S.) on both sides of the various issues. This may be due to the fact that atheists as a group are fairly small in number (again, at least in the U.S.), and it might not seem to be worth the effort to break them down by what they actually feel/know/do.

So to answer Darth's question, a theist is someone who believes in one or more gods. That's it; that's all I or anyone else can rightfully say. It has the same value and accuracy as stating that atheists do not believe in any god(s).

I think this "lumping together" might actually be even more useless in a slightly different society. In Sweden religion is not a big issue. Short of asking someone if they believe in God or not, it's often virtually impossible to guess if they do (and no one would ever ask, since very few really cares, short of those who really, really believe in God). I would say most atheists are actually, out of pure laziness, still members of the state church, so not even that is a good indication of God belief. Even the church has gone so far towards a more social role than religious that I suspect a surprisingly high number of priests probably don't believe in God. Whenever someone argues about why they are still members of the state church, the argument invariantly goes towards them wanting to have their children baptized or married in church, as they themselves were, rather than there being any belief in God. To keep the churches up and running is also a common argument, even from those who would never themselves enter a church.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

However, lumping all atheists into the same class for various arguments about an "atheist worldview" seems to be very popular these days for many people, here in this forum and in the U.S. as a whole (I can't accurately say how it appears outside the U.S.) on both sides of the various issues.

Sorry, I think it's just you. Over here in Britain, it's virtually unknown, and atheism generally passes without comment; it's people who are overtly Christian who are regarded as anomalous. The default seems to be such a diluted version of Anglicanism that it's closer to atheism than an actual religion. Discrimination against, or even public criticism of, atheists in the UK seems so unlikely these days as to be almost absurd. In my experience, anyway.

Dave

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Sorry, I think it's just you.

Although, yrreg isn't an American.

Quote:

Over here in Britain, it's virtually unknown, and atheism generally passes without comment; it's people who are overtly Christian who are regarded as anomalous. The default seems to be such a diluted version of Anglicanism that it's closer to atheism than an actual religion. Discrimination against, or even public criticism of, atheists in the UK seems so unlikely these days as to be almost absurd. In my experience, anyway.

Dave

Yes, I figured the attitudes shown by Yubi and you are much more common outside of the U.S. and outside of this sub-forum. Mainly I was feeling a bit grouchy after the recent explosion of "Why are atheists..." and "Why are theists..." threads and wanted to soapbox for a bit.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

That is actually a very pertinent question. I know I have ranted about this before, but I find the categories of theist and atheist to be almost useless for developing stereotypes.

That was sorta my point. Thanks for saying that so well.

DR

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Although, yrreg isn't an American.

OK, maybe it's just Americans and nutters.

Dave

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

OK, maybe it's just Americans and nutters.

There's a difference?

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Beerina

We can also grapple with the horns directly, of course.


If a god existed who was, more or less, as Christians portray him, then yes, we would have every right to be angry at it for sticking us in a universe where 9 year olds can get kidnapped and raped, then wrapped in plastic and given a teddy bear to comfort them (how lovely) while they are buried alive.

So ya, a god who lets that happen is one sick S.O.B. indeed. One is ethically bound to be disgusted and disturbed by such a god.

I prefer ethically bound to hunt it down and destroy it - but disgusted and disturbed is a start.

[arthwollipot]

I don't think that there was any suggestion that yrreg was claiming that he was doing any kind of scientific study. Yes, he used the phrase "I'm doing a study of atheists", but I don't think that necessarily means the rigorous kind of study that you'd find in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm kinda doing a study of creationists - I ask them certain questions to determine what their beliefs are, but it's far from rigorous. It's for my own interest rather than for publishing.

I think the phrase "I'm doing a study of atheists" was indeed misleading language, but I don't think yrreg is actually claiming, or intending to claim, that there is any actual science being done.

Anyway, I don't think he knows what that is.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I don't think that there was any suggestion that yrreg was claiming that he was doing any kind of scientific study. Yes, he used the phrase "I'm doing a study of atheists", but I don't think that necessarily means the rigorous kind of study that you'd find in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm kinda doing a study of creationists - I ask them certain questions to determine what their beliefs are, but it's far from rigorous. It's for my own interest rather than for publishing.

I think the phrase "I'm doing a study of atheists" was indeed misleading language, but I don't think yrreg is actually claiming, or intending to claim, that there is any actual science being done.

Anyway, I don't think he knows what that is.

Thanks. I agree that perhaps it is unfair to hold yrreg to any strict standard as far as study goes. However, I find the idea of doing a "study" by simply asking questions to elicit a response a bit sketchy. Though I should be honest and admit that I in fact do that very thing. I like to ask theists, particularly Mormons, about their "spiritual" experiences. I've come up with some very interesting information that kind of surprised me. I would love to do a rigorous study to verify some of my initial conclusions. However I'm rather skeptical of those conclusions and I think that is as it should be.

That said, I'm at a complete loss as to how yrrreg's questions reveal anything. His patronizing and snotty repartee seems to me to reveal that he hasn't learned anything he wasn't predisposed to learn from the beginning.

Which brings me back to my complaint. What good is yrreg's "study" if he isn't even making an effort to learn anything beyond what he thinks he allready knows? And what good is it when he declares results that are not in line with the truth? How is that a "study"?

yrreg: Atheists are perverts
EE: No.

yrreg: Atheists are angry at god?
EE: No.

yrreg: So then, atheists hate god?
EE: No. You are an idiot. How many times can we tell you that you can't hate and be mad at something that doesn't exist.

yrreg: I rest my case.
EE: {sigh}

[arthwollipot]

I don't disagree with anything you've said.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

. Might as well set up psychological profiles for people who put their right shoe on first vs. people who start with the left.

Such an analogy would make sense if people were to worship feet.. oh wait...

Originally Posted by Hokulele

However, lumping all atheists into the same class for various arguments about an "atheist worldview" seems to be very popular these days for many people, here in this forum and in the U.S. as a whole (I can't accurately say how it appears outside the U.S.) on both sides of the various issues. This may be due to the fact that atheists as a group are fairly small in number (again, at least in the U.S.), and it might not seem to be worth the effort to break them down by what they actually feel/know/do.

Not unexpected behavior, really. People tend to form into groups for self preservation. Tack on a sense of persecuation and you have the makings of a new religous movement... Anyone want to start the "atheism is a religion" game again?

Originally Posted by Hokulele

. So to answer Darth's question, a theist is someone who believes in one or more gods. That's it; that's all I or anyone else can rightfully say. It has the same value and accuracy as stating that atheists do not believe in any god(s).
Meh.

I always thought thiest as the Atheist word for "non atheist", much like Goy is the jewish term for non-jew.
With that said, I see no reason to complain against it's use. Certainly it can be generalized to the point of stereotypic stupidity, but that's not the words fault.

The word woman refers to about half the population of earth and as such it would be silly to think that women represent a monolithic group with a solitary/shared sense of purpose and opinion. but, does that mean we should always ask "What do you mean by woman" when discussing feminism and politics?

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by joobz

The word woman refers to about half the population of earth and as such it would be silly to think that women represent a monolithic group with a solitary/shared sense of purpose and opinion...

Good thing no one ever does that...

Quote:

... but, does that mean we should always ask "What do you mean by woman" when discussing feminism and politics?

No, and I don't think we need to continually define theism, but rather start to drill down and find out more about the theist (or group of theists) actually being discussed. Much like finding out more about the woman (or women) before making assumptions about her political views.