Originally posted by inimalist
I'd like to do a chart measuring the correlation between good pro science posts and good anti-science posts.My assumption is a strong negative R.
I am very positive actually. But I dislike it when people start saying their scientific views are the truth, prove facts etc. Be it creationism or evolution. Scientists are generally very passionate people doing great work and having way too little money to do it in.
Originally posted by queeq
I am very positive actually.
R is a value that talks about the power of a correlation between two variables.
Negative in this case would indicate that, as people put more time and detail into their pro-science posting, less time is put into the quality of anti-science posts. I'd also assume the correlation holds the other way.
Originally posted by inimalist
R is a value that talks about the power of a correlation between two variables.Negative in this case would indicate that, as people put more time and detail into their pro-science posting, less time is put into the quality of anti-science posts. I'd also assume the correlation holds the other way.
I can see the R going up as we speak. 😆
Originally posted by inimalistNow that would be interesting. How would you operationally define and measure the lessening quality of the anti-science posts?
R is a value that talks about the power of a correlation between two variables.Negative in this case would indicate that, as people put more time and detail into their pro-science posting, less time is put into the quality of anti-science posts.
😮💨
Originally posted by Mindship
Now that would be interesting. How would you operationally define and measure the lessening quality of the anti-science posts?😮💨
you would need to operationalize what qualifies something as being a) anti-science or pro-science, and then b) define what is good or bad for each.
Then, we would have to get a whole bunch of judges, get them to assess at random posts with no name, then plot the scores by time posted in a thread. An inter-rater reliability test would also be good.
How to operationalize would be much more difficult..
Originally posted by Regret
It does not have to be, if there is a God I believe he follows a law that if we were to understand it we would term it in line with science. I do not believe in a supernatural entity. I believe in an entity that is capable of doing things that we do not understand on a level that we will probably never be able to understand. This does not mean supernatural. You could describe it as supernatural, based on what we understand at present, but I do not.Symbolic statements do not mean non-factual, and fact does not prohibit symbolism. Anyone who denies scientific fact is a fool.
Do you agree that the fool says in his/her heart, " there is no God?"
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. That was written by people who wanted there belief to not be questioned. It is a mean and bigoted way of saying that those who are against you are stupid.
No a mean bigoted way of saying that those who are against you are stupid is "people who are against me are stupid", which is what "real" atheists do. The phrase JIA used is a way of sugarcoating the same idea.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No a mean bigoted way of saying that those who are against you are stupid is "people who are against me are stupid", which is what "real" atheists do. The phrase JIA used is a way of sugarcoating the same idea.
Sugarcoating or not, it still doesn't say what JIA want it to say.