Here: A well-replicated finding in the psychological literature is the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. However, several studies also conclude that one form of religiosity, church attendance, is protective against later-life cognitive decline. No effects of religious belief per se on cognitive decline have been found, potentially due to the restricted measures of belief Read More…
Fair warning to the regular readership. Typically I like to cover intelligent design and evolution-related issues, but I trust I may be permitted a bit of a detour. There have been a couple of interesting posts recently by Sal, vjtorley and Barry about issues of a more philosophical bent. vjtorley’s OP, in particular, quoted parts Read More…
Why is it that humans can recognize the designs of other humans even for token objects like a system of 500 fair coins? Why does life resemble designs? Answer: designs frequently conform to simple organizing principles rather than explicit patterns. Simple organizing principles are a way to understand large amounts of data with our finite Read More…
“Take the coins and dice and arrange them in a way that is evidently designed.” That was my instruction to groups of college science students who voluntarily attended my extra-curricular ID classes sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ at James Madison University (even Jason Rosenhouse dropped in a few times). Many of the students were Read More…
… that most ordinary people would torture others to death if a guy in a lab coat told them to? But was that true?
Some research is valuable principally for what it tells us about the persons doing and consuming it rather than about its subjects.
By Bayesian standards, 17–25% of social science findings “are probably false,” Johnson thinks, and interestingly, he sees this as a bigger problem than biases and scientific misconduct.
The thing is, this “inconsistent and unreliable” stuff has doubtless been known for some time and only now, in the wake of other scandals, do we hear about it. Peer review, where are YOU?
… just don’t confuse that with getting any better. Here’s a quick summary of the unsolved problems that made psychiatry’s most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V) so controversial that it may be the last.
According to a journal of the scandal-plagued psychology field, there is a “subterranean war on science” going on.
According to Slate, one of the tested articles producing lower empathy than great books was a Smithsonian piece about the potato … another was about air mice (house sparrows).
It’s one thing for “cool crowd” psychologists to fall on their sword but do they have to do it in public?
Well, on a globe, lots of paths eventually intersect, and what do we see but Dan Graur attacking the positivity study’s lead author, calling her a “well-known crook”and “positivity scoundrel.” My, my.
Unconscious bias? Publish or perish? Both?
When it’s really hard to tell, you have to know there is a problem.