Gregory S. Paul Study Reloaded
by GutsThere seems to be renewed interest in the now debunked paper by Gregory Paul. It has recently been touted by P.Z. Myers , even mistakenly referring to him as a "social scientist." He also seems to be unaware (or unwilling to accept) that the paper has been skinned alive.
Recently some more interesting facts have come to my attention. Regarding the Times article Peez links to:
“I was simply reporting the story as best I could,” correspondent Gledhill emailed Chalcedon. “I am not a social scientist myself so cannot comment on whether the study had flaws … if the Times had not reported it, it is likely that the study would have languished undiscovered .…”
Ms. Gledhill described Paul as a “social scientist,” which he is not. She explained the oversight: “I was not aware of [his] background. However, it is not the case that we would publish views of anyone who contacted us. What made his views reportable in the Times was the fact that they had already been accepted in the form of a paper in the Journal of Religion and Society. Of course, if he had sent that paper directly to us and it had not been in the journal, I would not have reported it. And I am afraid that, working on a deadline and unable to reach him, I made the assumption he was a social scientist because reading the Web page of the journal, which to all intents and purposes appears to be a respectable academic journal, made it clear that they published articles by social scientists.” (We are grateful to Ms. Gledhill for discussing this matter so forthrightly.)
December 9th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Be nice. Labels of authority are all they have at hand, so why be surprised when he makes such an error?
Comment by F2XL — December 9, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 12:01 am
I heard Paul recently wowed the Philadelphia Atheists Club with his science and stuff.
Comment by chunkdz — December 10, 2008 @ 12:01 am
December 10th, 2008 at 12:08 am
From chunkdz's link:
This could explain motives behind the paper. Money. Notoriety. Add promotion of one's pet ideology to the mix and you have it.
Comment by Bradford — December 10, 2008 @ 12:08 am
December 10th, 2008 at 12:09 am
The comments from the Philadelphia Atheists are priceless, btw.
Comment by chunkdz — December 10, 2008 @ 12:09 am
December 10th, 2008 at 12:12 am
lulz
Comment by Guts — December 10, 2008 @ 12:12 am
December 10th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Just a couple of points.
There is fact and there is opinion. Some facts are easy to establish in a country with an efficient bureaucracy. Births and deaths for example should be fairly reliable. Cause of death, especially, if looking over a historical period will be more problematic; ditto premature deaths etc. But with caveats, still useful information can be obtained. Self-reported opinions are going to be much less reliable, as they are easily influenced by the framing of questions. That is why Paul's study (and the Barna group poll) should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Let me try an analogy, using an example I am familiar with. Immigration of UK citizens to France has recently been extensive. The facts are available or ascertainable. number in total, rate of arrivals versus returnees per annum, demographic distribution, economic status etc. But say I wanted to know why? I could take a survey, but the answers would be influenced by how the question was asked, and how open and honest my respondents were prepared to be. I can't think offhand how the truth of those answers could be verified. If I was asking voting intentions, I can compare my poll with the real result, but if I am asking "Why did you move to France?" or "Do you believe in a deity?", I have no way to verify. (And religious people are naturally more honest than atheists, right, so I would obviously have to introduce a veracity factor!)
My wife has a theory that many ex-pats are here because they they have divorced previous partners and are in new relationships. One could maybe establish marital status and history of a representative sample but asking "Are you here because you have been divorced?" might not get a truthful (or any) response.
Whilst opinion polls (which Paul's study seems, in essence, to be) can be entertaining and can "spark debate" they are only a bit of fun and should not be taken seriously. But then, I am not a politician seeking election. Also who decides on categories? I consider myself an atheist, but Bradford tells me, because I say "we don't know what we don't know", I am an agnostic. I suggest Bradford's definition would exclude all atheists I know, including Richard Dawkins.
I was tempted to ask why polls and surveys into religiosity seem to arouse such interest and strong opinion here, ID having nothing to do with religion, but I'll resist the urge.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 4:56 am
December 11th, 2008 at 6:11 am
So subscribers to The Journal of Religion and Society feel the Paul article was useful and entirely appropriate for publication by the Journal even though it was deeply flawed.
Comment by don provan — December 11, 2008 @ 6:11 am