Poll

Which of the following groups do you trust when it comes to scientific research and reporting?

Preview

Too broad of categories (Score: 4, Insightful)

by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 14:38 (#2TX6)

There are billions of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and Agnostics. I wouldn't automatically dismiss any research by any of them. Nor would I automatically trust it because it came from one of them.

Now, if I have more information about a particular group an individual comes from, I can certainly do that. Like, if it comes from The Institute for Creation Research I'm not trusting anything they say. Or if they are funded by a large oil company and do climate research...

Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1, Insightful)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 15:14 (#2TX8)

Hmm... your point of view is valid. But there are others. For instance you wrote:
Or if they are funded by a large oil company and do climate research...
Yes, people have reasons to fake research results. They may be paid to do so. They may do it to get funding and/or fame. Those reasons are equally valid for religious and not religious people. However, unlike Atheists and perhaps Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists can have an extra incentive to fake results. One more kind of temptation. So statistically one should be more careful about what religious people say.

Of course, this is only statistics, there should not be an automatism to dismiss their research. There is no Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist hive mind. Cheating is always done by an individual.

Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1)

by venkman@pipedot.org on 2014-11-06 13:07 (#2TXN)

I see two fallacies in the statement: "So statistically one should be more careful about what religious people say." First, I don't see any statistics. Is that an omission or is it a bias? Also your comment seems to have gone from believing research results from these groups to just a general "what religious people say." That technically isn't what was asked, and the result is over generalized.

Please feel free to throw in statistics and maybe narrow down the focus just to the question at hand. You can't fight bullshit with bullshit.

Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-11-06 17:01 (#2TXV)

First, I don't see any statistics. Is that an omission or is it a bias?
Neither nor. If you have two groups where one group can do more or has the incentive to do more, then there will be done more in this group. Good or bad. My hypothesis is that the group of religious people have one incentive more to cheat, which atheists don't have: To defend their believe. This has nothing to do with statistics? If you don't like the term 'statistic' in this context, what about 'theory of probability'?
Also your comment seems to have gone from believing research results from these groups to just a general "what religious people say."
Perhaps, but does it matter? I could also claim that the question was too imprecise. What kind of research? I doubt religious people have any reason to manipulate the latest semi-conductor research results, or lie about the environmental effects of fracking any more than atheists. So, maybe I was in error to interpret it as 'research results, which in any way affect their believe system'. IMHO any other question does not really make sense.
That technically isn't what was asked, and the result is over generalized.
Technically not, true. But over generalized? Perhaps generalized, but certainly not over generalized.

Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 2, Insightful)

by venkman@pipedot.org on 2014-11-06 19:00 (#2TY0)

Even in a probabilistic sense, I could argue that an atheist's strongly held belief would be matched by the religious observer's strongly held belief, and in that way would have the two would have the same probability to lie.

This poll, though probably just for light amusement and discussion, brings up many questions about the philosophy of science. Science is a human endeavor and as such is very much limited to how the world is perceived by humans. There will always be bias, not all of it intentional. Data has no bias, though, so reproducibility is very important before putting too much stock in an observation.

Moderation

Time Reason Points Voter
2014-11-07 18:46 Insightful +1 kerrany@pipedot.org

Junk Status

Not marked as junk