Earlier quoted context omitted.
>rigger uh... rigour
Rigor! https://www.thefreedictionary.com/rigor
that's what i thought, google only showed the medical definition at first, and i trusted it
An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
121–130 of 165 posts
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's almost like saying it's OK to falsely report about religion in the first place because "the religious interest groups will defend themselves adequately", etc. False reporting of any sort (including the failure to correct prior false reports, whether intended or not) always causes harm. Truth and principles matter. Furthermore, reducing ideas to power struggles between those who speak them is to commit both the…
Why would an idea exist other than to serve a purpose, and why would that purpose be distant from the mindset which benefits the most from it?
> Why would an idea exist other than to serve a purpose
Because ideas are the substrate of thought, belief, motivation, desire, and human life itself. Without ideas we lack the ability to understand anything at all.
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#123Wait a second. If the issue with the analysis is as the article says, that is that some countries were weighted far higher, that means that in some countries the original conclusion does hold (probably for a small sample size). Perhaps this is because some religions promote generosity and some do not? Would be interesting to look in to.
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would an idea exist other than to serve a purpose, and why would that purpose be distant from the mindset which benefits the most from it?
> Why would an idea exist other than to serve a purpose Because ideas are the substrate of thought, belief, motivation, desire, and human life itself. Without ideas we lack the ability to understand anything at all.
Not sure how that relates to my question. Why would an idea exist without someone to give it purpose?
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#125Interesting, waitstaff on reddit always say religious people tip worse or not at all.
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which is that no one can give a bright-line rule[2] to distinguish between the "real" science and pseudo-science "if you can't repeat and predict, stop calling it science" seems like a nice bright line. Peer-review obviously isn't enough, I'd like to see peer-replicated studies become a thing.
What about astronomy, cosmology, archeology, paleontology, volcanology, evolutionary biology, cladistics, macroeconomics, etc., which do not allow us to "repeat and predict," as you say? Some of these cases can be rescued by considering "retrodiction"[1][2] as valid substitute for prediction in the right circumstances, but not all. I personally think the analysis of the Mott problem[3] points the way to the solution…
Astronomy / cosmology absolutely makes testable predictions.
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#127> In fact, Decety’s paper has continued to be cited in media articles on religion. Just last month two such articles appeared (one on Buzzworthy and one on TruthTheory) citing Decety’s paper that religious children were less generous.
“Media articles” is carrying a lot of weight there
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#128I wrote a webpage in 2015 about the Decety paper, what it was and how it was presented in the media, which might be of interest. The paper seemed highly suspect in various ways even at the time. I added an update in 2017 that "new analysis shows that the original study failed to adequately control for the children’s nationality". On the (unfinished) page I'm using the paper as an excuse to teach myself basic statistics and research methods.
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#129"The paper received a great deal of attention, and was covered by over 80 media outlets including The Economist, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American." And how many of these will cover the retraction? A dozen at most? And all those articles will be sitting out there, getting cited and read on occasion.
I collected some headlines in 2015:
Study Shows Non-Religious Kids Are More Altruistic and Generous Than Non-Religious Ones (TIME)
Religious children more punitive, less likely to display altruism (Boing Boing)
Study: Religious children less altruistic, more mean than nonreligious kids (Chicago Sun-Times)
Religious Kids Aren’t as Good at Sharing, Study Finds (Yahoo Parenting)
Study: Religion Makes Children Less Generous (Newser)
Religion doesn’t make kids more generous or altruistic, study finds (LA Times)
Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds (The Guardian)
Being religious makes you less generous, study finds (metro.co.uk)
Kinder Without God: Kids Who Grow Up In A Religious Home Less Altruistic Than Those Without Religion (Medical Daily)
Surprise! Science proves kids with religious upbringings are less generous — and so are adults (rawstory.com, the Medical Daily story reposted with a new headline)
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really sad to see and feels like it's becoming more common (maybe just because I'm paying closer attention). If it fits the narrative, accept first, retract later. It would be interesting to see view statistics on the original article vs the retraction.
It's not sad, it's great. The history of science is full of drama where most issues took multiple generations to resolve. It's easy to forget, in those interim periods, people would build all kinds of castles on total BS all the time that cost society in so many ways. Today stuff gets resolved faster and that's a good thing. People, qualified or not, who get carried away by hype or bias look foolish much much faster.…
This is a very reassuring viewpoint. I think the onus of acceptance relies on each individual perception and how they can relate to such facts. I will disagree on your usage of 'foolish' because I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to declare foolishness, but to paint a wholistic, optimistic picture of a realistic future. It is my opinion to embrace misconceptions about past mistakes that can have astounding detrimental effects and not to look down, but to unabashedly represent a truth and allow others to accept it.