Good News For Atheist-Scientists

[Khandro]

Unable to convince others to see it your way? No problem, you can now force them to, with magnets;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11935492/scientists-reduce-belief-god-hostility-immigrants-magnets.html

[maggiebee]

Ha ha Khandro, this would be better in Jokes methinks.

[RATTER15]

I think it most like just enables people to see "the bleedin obvious"!

[tonyav]

They'll never get me !
http://www.evilenglish.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/tumblr_loq5o7RD4N1qzl8s1o1_400.gif

[Khandro]

I wonder if it works the other way!

[ll_billym]

An interesting article purporting to show some plausibility to the theory that ideological and religious beliefs are are a response to the basic feeling of being threatened and more specifically the fear of death.

[Khandro]

Yes, I think those scientists must really feel threatened.

[naomi24]

Hope springs eternal.

[wildwood]

Good news for Khandro...

http://www.christianitycove.com/use-magnets-to-show-how-god-draws-us-near-to-us-0930/1046/

\_(°¿°)_/

[Theland]

And if the poles are reversed?

[birdie1971]

Is this a joke?

Quoting the Telegraph, "... By directing magnetic force towards the posterior medial frontal cortex of the brain, they were able to reduce belief in God and decrease intolerance towards immigrants..."


This is a joke. It absolutely must be. The very premise of this so-called 'experiment' is moronic. This is the kind of pseudo-scientific buffoonery that I would happy dedicate my life to eradicating. Even calling it pseudo-scientific gives it an air of vague credibility.

This is male cow excrement of the highest order. How on earth can one measure a reduction in the belief of God or an intolerance to immigrants, or any other belief for that matter? Where is the control group? On what empirical, measurable scale does one grade 'belief' and/or its reduction? On what empirical, measurable scale does one grade 'intolerance'?

It makes me want to weep. This 'study' has been reported in the press as being 'scientific'. It is nothing of the sort. It can't be. For a scientific principal to be valid, it must be observable, repeatable and falsifiable. This study cannot be falsified as the very thing they're trying to measure (ie. degrees of belief) is fundamentally unmeasurable.

Karl Raimund Popper must be spinning in his grave.

[Theland]

Men in white coats can't always be trusted?

[1ozzy]

If they are carrying a straight jacket and smiling nicely they can Theland.

[jim360]

Oh come on birdie, do you trust the general media to report scientific work correctly and with the full details? Try reading the actual paper before dismissing it so crudely.

[birdie1971]

Theland - "Men in white coats can't always be trusted?"

I agree wholeheartedly.

But I'm speaking about methodology. Not a person. Science is not a white coat. I think I made that quite clear in my earlier post.

What is it that you're saying? Specifics please.

[birdie1971]

jim360

Have you read it? It's pay-walled.

[Theland]

Men in white coats?
Well they ostracise scientists who having followed the evidence, conclude that I.D. might have some merit.
But the predominant culture is to close them down.
Like a clique.

[birdie1971]

No.

Now you're being silly. ID (Intelligent Design) does not fall within the scope of science. Why? Because it is unfalsifiable. It is also, untestable.

You say, "... they ostracise scientists who having followed the evidence...". Really? What evidence? Please provide it so that we can all see the error of our ways.

[jim360]

As a university member I can get past the paywall and I'm reading it now. Not my field but it's pretty obvious that the Telegraph is massively overselling the results. The sample size is 38 people, split into two groups of 19 -- at the minimum for a statistically significant sample, for starters -- and the authors throw in a huge number of caveats all of which are overlooked by the Telegraph: "the present work does not address several key questions..." being the most revealing.

The main claim of the paper is that there is a good indication that there is a biological mechanism that is involved in "ideological commitment", and that this can be manipulated. But the work is preliminary, acknowledged as so, and intended primarily to "[open] the way for researchers to not only
describe the biological mechanisms undergirding high-level attitudes and beliefs, but to establish causality via experimental intervention."

Whether this can be established by zapping brains with magnetic fields and then giving 38 people texts either praising or criticising the US, I can't say. I'm a little sceptical to be sure but I don't think it should be dismissed as pseudoscience so quickly.

[jim360]

In terms of the control group/ assessment questions you posed, the paper makes reference to something like 30 years of literature that I can presume is devoted to the subject of trying to answer the question of how to measure religious beliefs in a scientific way. The main technique, really, is to ask enough people, and apply proper statistics to the answers.

And the control group was a set of people of a similar social background who weren't zapped. As far as I can tell the typical methodology of psychological science has been applied, and future work would only serve to grow the sample size.

The Telegraph article deserves the accolade of being "male cow excrement", but I'm not convinced the paper does.

[birdie1971]

jim360 [J] - " ...the main claim of the paper is that there is a good indication that there is a biological mechanism that is involved in "ideological commitment", and that this can be manipulated..."

Oh dear. Pseudo-science dear boy. And I think you know it.

J - "... The sample size is 38 people, split into two groups of 19 -- at the minimum for a statistically significant sample..."

Really? "A statistically significant sample...". By who's reckoning? A sample size of 38 is nothing. You know that. Surely you know that?


J - "... I'm a little sceptical to be sure but I don't think it should be dismissed as pseudoscience so quickly..."

Science without foundation is Pseudo-science. Does anything more need to be said?