Darwin, Britain's Hero, Is Still Controversial In U.S.
Arizona Coin Collector
On the story below.
You can view the two pound coin from the
link below from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_two_pound_coin_2009_Charles_Darwin.png
(MORE INFORMATION)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin,_Charles
-------------
FROM:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100379229&ft=1&f=1003
NPR - National Public Radio
Health & Science
Darwin, Britain's Hero, Is Still Controversial In U.S.
by Joe Palca
Weekend Edition Sunday, February 8, 2009 · This year
marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth,
and to say Darwin mania is gripping England does not
overstate the case.
The Royal Mint has created a Darwin coin, the Royal
Mail has made a Darwin stamp set, and there are
countless lectures and exhibitions throughout the
country.
Bob Bloomfield is in charge of Darwin200, a program
coordinating the celebration. He says there's even a
group of knitters paying tribute to Darwin.
"The group created artistic knitted elements which
are evocative of evolution processes," says Bloomfield.
"Similarly there's a very small group also doing quilts
which are doing a Bayeux tapestry of the Beagle voyage."
In other words, Darwin is not the controversial figure
in the United Kingdom that he continues to be in the
United States. Bloomfield says the reason for this is
science has proved Darwin right.
"Unless you want to disregard the weight of evidence,
there's not really a controversy," says Bloomfield.
"Most difficulties come from people who have a fixed
perspective on either the nature of time or either
the created nature of the natural world."
But in Britain, even those who see the hand of a
creator in the natural world don't have a problem
with Darwin. The reason is that science and religion
answer different questions, says the Right Rev. Lord
Harries of Pentregarth, a member of the House of
Lords and the former bishop of Oxford for the Church
of England.
"Science is trying to address the question, 'How do
things happen?'" says Harries. "In answer to that
you get the theory of evolution. Things happen
gradually over a very long period of time by natural
causes. But if you ask 'Why did things happen?' Then
you get a completely different answer."
It's the why of life that belongs in the spiritual
domain. Harries believes the problems some religions
have with Darwin and evolution come from a literal
interpretation of the Bible. According to Harries,
while the Bible contains profound truths, it is not
word for word true.
"First of all, take the issue of the age of the
Earth," says Harries. "Do people really think that
the universe is only 4,000 years old when every
science - chemistry, paleontology, physics,
astronomy . points to, with substantial evidence, to
the Earth being billions of years old and the universe
more than billions of years old. So you have to ask
people, do you think that the vast majority of
scientists . are liars?"
The Rev. Malcolm Brown says the Church of England
did have problems with Darwin's theory at first,
but quickly realized it was not an attack on
Christian faith. Nevertheless, by getting the first
reaction wrong, "We legitimized, to some extent,
later movements, particularly in the United States
during the early 20th century, to raise creationism
as an ideology and make Darwin a whipping boy."
The creationist ideology, now repackaged as a
theory known as intelligent design, still runs
strong in certain parts of America.
The University of Kansas in Lawrence actually has
one of the 1,250 copies that make up the first
edition of On the Origin of Species. But unlike
in England, where it seems every scrap of Darwin
memorabilia is on public display, this copy of the
first edition stays mainly in the vault.
Leonard Krishtalka is a paleontologist and head of
the natural history museum on campus. Krishtalka
knows the book, with it's notions about how life
appeared on Earth, is threatening to some people.
And even though Kansas has grabbed headlines with
its fights over teaching intelligent design as an
alternative to Darwin's theories in schools, it's
not a problem unique to Kansas.
"There are actually 34 states in the United States
that have passed anti-evolution laws of one kind
or another," says Krishtalka, "whether it's
stickers in textbooks or warnings that 'Reading
this book with be injurious to your mental health,"
whether it's California or Alabama or Louisiana.
For the record, in Kansas, the teaching of
evolution in schools never stopped because all of
the regulation and rules that the anti-evolution
segment of the Kansas City Board of Education tried
to get through were never enacted."
But the fight continues. It's not a scientific
fight. Science has already proclaimed Darwin the
winner. It's a social tug of war. A tug of war that
started 150 ago and shows no signs of abating.
..
mazorj
"Arizona Coin Collector" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Pa6dnR0Lt9hh9xLU...@earthlink.com...
> Hello
>
> On the story below.
>
> You can view the two pound coin from the
> link below from Wikipedia.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_two_pound_coin_2009_Charles_Darwin.png
>
> (MORE INFORMATION)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin,_Charles
>
> -------------
>
> FROM:
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100379229&ft=1&f=1003
>
> NPR - National Public Radio
>
> Health & Science
>
> Darwin, Britain's Hero, Is Still Controversial In U.S.
Someone on NPR also noted that 47% of Americans do not accept
evolution. That single factoid explains the successful marketing of
Obama dollars, Elvis quarters, ridiculously high selling prices for
mediocre coins on e-Bay, and the offers to "buy your gold for cash".
Not to mention other phenomena like jack-ass videos,
S+c+i+e+n+t+o+l+o+g+y, and the elections of 2000 and 2004.
Most people think that the TV commercial for hulu is a joke. The fact
is, the aliens have succeeded to the point where they now can openly
taunt us with the truth. ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m71m-LBqFQ
Mike Marotta
> Someone on NPR also noted that 47% of Americans do not accept
> evolution. That single factoid explains the successful marketing of
To set the record straight:
The Harris Poll® #52, July 6, 2005
Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by
God
A majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed
from earlier species, up from 46 percent in 1994.
Forty-nine percent of adults believe plants and animals have evolved
from some other species while 45 percent do not believe that.
Adults are evenly divided about whether or not apes and man have a
common ancestry (46 percent believe we do and 47 percent believe we do
not).
Again divided, 46 percent of adults agree that "Darwin’s theory of
evolution is proven by fossil discoveries," while 48 percent disagree.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581
More Americans Believe in the Devil, Hell and Angels than in Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution
Nearly 25% of Americans Believe They Were Once another Person
ROCHESTER, N.Y. – December 10, 2008 – That very large majorities of
the American public believe in God, miracles, the survival of the soul
after death, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Virgin birth
will come as no great surprise.
80% of adult Americans believe in God – unchanged since the last time
we asked the question in 2005. Large majorities of the public believe
in miracles (75%), heaven (73%), angels (71%), that Jesus is God or
the Son of God (71%), the resurrection of Jesus (70%), the survival of
the soul after death (68%), hell (62%), the Virgin birth (Jesus born
of Mary (61%) and the devil (59%).
Slightly more people – but both are minorities – believe in Darwin’s
theory of evolution (47%) than in creationism (40%).
Sizeable minorities believe in ghosts (44%), UFOs (36%), witches
(31%), astrology (31%), and reincarnation (24%).
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982
Mazorj also wrote:
> Most people think that the TV commercial for hulu is a joke. The fact
> is, the aliens have succeeded to the point where they now can openly
> taunt us with the truth. ;-)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m71m-LBqFQ- Hide quoted text -
Thanks for the link! Although we do have a cable feed for the
internet, we do not watch television by long habit, though to confess,
Saturday morning, when we woke up, I went looking for cartoons but
stopped at Elizabeth Taylor Richard Burton Rex Harrison Martin Landau
a cast of thousands in CLEOPATRA. We watched about 20 or 30 minutes.
Great acting, lots of pomp, but, you know how it's going to turn out,
right? Anyway, I did not watch the Superbowl. In fact in my entire
life I have not watched enough total Superbowl to make one quarter.
So, the alien invasion via television will pass me over, I am sad to
say...
BTW -- You are probably one of the few here who know that the word
"evolution" was not coined by Darwin. Moreover Herbert Specer was not
a "social Darwinist" but rather, Darwin was a "biological
Spencerian." (That and much more is hidden in books.)
To bring this about, though, it is far too easy to make fun of other
people's collecting habits -- or of collecting anything, actually. I
have repeatedly pointed out that the 1804 Dollars and 1913 Liberty
Nickels are fakes, frauds, phonies, counterfeits, but people keep
paying attention to them as if they were real, important or
interesting. That's the free market way to do things and the
alternative is a far scarier proposition than some indemic idiocy.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"The king of coins has no clothes."
Bruce Remick
"Mike Marotta" <mer...@torchlake.com> wrote in message
news:7b3663fe-4a74-4084...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 9, 12:47 pm, "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Someone on NPR also noted that 47% of Americans do not accept
> evolution. That single factoid explains the successful marketing of
To set the record straight:
The Harris Poll® #52, July 6, 2005
Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by
God
A majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed
from earlier species, up from 46 percent in 1994.
Forty-nine percent of adults believe plants and animals have evolved
from some other species while 45 percent do not believe that.
Adults are evenly divided about whether or not apes and man have a
common ancestry (46 percent believe we do and 47 percent believe we do
not).
Again divided, 46 percent of adults agree that "Darwin’s theory of
evolution is proven by fossil discoveries," while 48 percent disagree.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581
More Americans Believe in the Devil, Hell and Angels than in Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution
____________________
Makes one wonder about the level of education reached among the people
polled, and how many had to be told who Darwin was before responding to the
question.
.
Mr. Jaggers
I would venture to say that only about 1/10000 of a percent of those who do
not accept Darwin's findings have actually read his works. The other
99.9999% rely on hearsay and "special" revelation - to someone other than
themselves.
James
Leo Marx
Our public schools are doing a very poor job at educating our children.
This is not accident.
It's much easier to exploit the ignorant than the educated.
JAM
Mr. Jaggers
> Bruce Remick wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Marotta" <mer...@torchlake.com> wrote in message
>> news:7b3663fe-4a74-4084...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 9, 12:47 pm, "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Someone on NPR also noted that 47% of Americans do not accept
>>> evolution. That single factoid explains the successful marketing of
>>
>> To set the record straight:
>>
>> The Harris Poll #52, July 6, 2005
>> Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by
>> God
>> A majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed
>> from earlier species, up from 46 percent in 1994.
>> Forty-nine percent of adults believe plants and animals have evolved
>> from some other species while 45 percent do not believe that.
>> Adults are evenly divided about whether or not apes and man have a
>> common ancestry (46 percent believe we do and 47 percent believe we
>> do not).
>> evolution is proven by fossil discoveries," while 48 percent
>> disagree.
>> http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581
>>
>> Theory of Evolution
>> ____________________
>>
>> Makes one wonder about the level of education reached among the
>> people polled, and how many had to be told who Darwin was before
>> responding to the question.
>>
>> .
>
> Our public schools are doing a very poor job at educating our
> children.
>
> This is not accident.
>
> It's much easier to exploit the ignorant than the educated.
Kids come to school with their minds made up regarding this topic and
therefore closed. Attempts to pry those minds open are mostly futile.
James
mazorj
"Mike Marotta" <mer...@torchlake.com> wrote in message
news:7b3663fe-4a74-4084...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
=====================================
Scary, ain't it?
The dumbest part about rejecting evolution just because one believes
in God is that science is not incompatible with faith. As one of the
NPR guests said, to reject science because of faith is both bad
science and bad theology. I was taught that not only is the
continuing evolution of the universe and human life compatible with
faith, it speaks of a Supreme Being who operated far more
intelligently than just a tinkerer who whipped up a cosmic set-piece
diorama that requires his constant attention to correct his design and
production errors.
Mazorj also wrote:
> Most people think that the TV commercial for hulu is a joke. The
> fact
> is, the aliens have succeeded to the point where they now can openly
> taunt us with the truth. ;-)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m71m-LBqFQ- Hide quoted text -
< BTW -- You are probably one of the few here who know that the word
"evolution" was not coined by Darwin. Moreover Herbert Specer was not
a "social Darwinist" but rather, Darwin was a "biological
Spencerian." (That and much more is hidden in books.)
As with most history, the details have been sanded smooth and
forgotten over the years. I learned (or had refreshed) a few of those
details listening to the anniversary interviews. It's one of the
reasons I listen to NPR. You get a lot of background and context that
commercial broadcasting doesn't bother with.
< To bring this about, though, it is far too easy to make fun of other
people's collecting habits -- or of collecting anything, actually. I
have repeatedly pointed out that the 1804 Dollars and 1913 Liberty
Nickels are fakes, frauds, phonies, counterfeits, but people keep
paying attention to them as if they were real, important or
interesting. That's the free market way to do things and the
alternative is a far scarier proposition than some indemic idiocy.
It's true that freedoms mean taking the good with the bad and
exercising enough judgment to know the difference between the two.
However, society can lawfully curtail any freedom if there are valid,
compelling reasons for doing so. So while being duped by a fraudulent
seller shouldn't be illegal, the freedom to perpetrate fraud should be
totally curtailed.
Mr. Jaggers
> "Mike Marotta" <mer...@torchlake.com> wrote in message
> news:7b3663fe-4a74-4084...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 9, 12:47 pm, "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Someone on NPR also noted that 47% of Americans do not accept
>> evolution. That single factoid explains the successful marketing of
>
> < To set the record straight:
>
> The Harris Poll® #52, July 6, 2005
> Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by
> God
> A majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed
> from earlier species, up from 46 percent in 1994.
> Forty-nine percent of adults believe plants and animals have evolved
> from some other species while 45 percent do not believe that.
> Adults are evenly divided about whether or not apes and man have a
> common ancestry (46 percent believe we do and 47 percent believe we do
> not).
> Again divided, 46 percent of adults agree that "Darwin's theory of
> evolution is proven by fossil discoveries," while 48 percent disagree.
> http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581
>
> More Americans Believe in the Devil, Hell and Angels than in Darwin's
> Theory of Evolution
> Nearly 25% of Americans Believe They Were Once another Person
> the American public believe in God, miracles, the survival of the soul
> after death, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Virgin birth
> will come as no great surprise.
> we asked the question in 2005. Large majorities of the public believe
> in miracles (75%), heaven (73%), angels (71%), that Jesus is God or
> the Son of God (71%), the resurrection of Jesus (70%), the survival of
> the soul after death (68%), hell (62%), the Virgin birth (Jesus born
> of Mary (61%) and the devil (59%).
> theory of evolution (47%) than in creationism (40%).
> Sizeable minorities believe in ghosts (44%), UFOs (36%), witches
> (31%), astrology (31%), and reincarnation (24%).
> http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982
> =====================================
>
> Scary, ain't it?
>
> The dumbest part about rejecting evolution just because one believes
> in God is that science is not incompatible with faith. As one of the
> NPR guests said, to reject science because of faith is both bad
> science and bad theology. I was taught that not only is the
> continuing evolution of the universe and human life compatible with
> faith, it speaks of a Supreme Being who operated far more
> intelligently than just a tinkerer who whipped up a cosmic set-piece
> diorama that requires his constant attention to correct his design and
> production errors.
The real hard core cases against evolution are brought forth by those who
claim that God speaks directly and privately to them. In my theology, that
is blasphemy of the most damnable sort. And once the claim is made, further
discussion will not occur.
Now that this topic has been on the table a while, it will serve as a test
of Jaggers' Law: "As soon as a Usenet post is made which challenges
fundamentalism, the
probability of Scripture citation by another poster within three calendar
days approaches one."
James
Mike Marotta
> Makes one wonder about the level of education reached among the people
> polled, and how many had to be told who Darwin was before responding to the
> question.
Bruce, that was why I went to the HARRIS POLL website. Harris,
Gallup, Pew and a couple of others are well-known for their
statistical reliability. The "level of education" can be expected to
be statistically representative of the USA. They would be
representative for age, income, gender, race, etc. etc., all the
significant variables. That's what makes Harris, Gallup, etc., worth
paying for.
If you read the print edition of USA Today, you will see that their
polls often give the sample size, margin of error and confidence
level. If I recall my stats class, you need to have 1054 samples to
be 95% confident with +/- 3% error.
I was pleasantly surprised to see all the hits when I googled
"statistics help."
Depending on where you live, you can probably take an accredited
statistics class at a community college for $350-$500. It will take
13-15 weeks of commitment, but you will know way more than everyone
else about how polling is done and the mental exercise will help stave
off senility.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
Statz 4 Life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA98PYAKzYo
Jud
Mike Marotta wrote:
> Depending on where you live, you can probably take an accredited
> statistics class at a community college for $350-$500. It will take
> 13-15 weeks of commitment, but you will know way more than everyone
> else about how polling is done and the mental exercise will help stave
> off senility.
There are liars, damned liars and statisticians. I took 'stat' in
college, and if there was one thing that I brought home from that
class was when the professor stated "Anytime someone quotes statistics
to you, they are lying. There are so many ways to make the statistics
work in any foregone conclusion."
Also, I am with the majority of the 93.4832% of the population who
don't believe in polls. (No jokes about Poland please!)
Bruce Remick
I still would be interested in learning if Harris only counted a response
from individuals who already were familiar with Darwin and his work. I also
wonder how much religion might have played a factor, and from there,
demographics. Just the fact that someone would comission such a poll
suggests to me that the was a built in bias and that the originator had an
interest in seeing some interesting results.
Always skeptical of polls and statistics.
Bruce Remick
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:L34kl.5921$_A2....@newsfe22.iad...
.....as are 64% of others over 55.
mazorj
There have been recent discussions about potential skewing of random
surveys because the poller has to catch someone who is at home, has
land-line telephone service, and isn't too rushed to answer a battery
of questions. It's been argued that the sets of surveyed respondents
in all polls are a bit heavy on seniors and other stay-at homes, while
those who choose not to keep their land line and just use their mobile
phone, or are out working, or cannot afford land line service are
under-represented. I suspect that the net effect of each of these
factors can tend to skew results toward the opinions of under-educated
and/or old-time, fundamentalist thinkers.
However, this effect is only important in surveys such as political
polling where even a fraction of a percent can count. Regardless of
whether it really is 47% or 52% or just 42% that don't accept
evolution, that's enough to make me fear that the country is going to
hell in a hand basket. (Okay, I don't believe in hell, I'm just
trying to use terms that the ignorati understand.)
mazorj
"Caveat mensore"
"Stats 101 taught me everything I need to know about polling pitfalls"
mazorj
Right away you run into trouble. Plenty of creationists and ID
advocates think they know their Darwin. You'd have to ask a battery
of questions about Darwin and evolution before you could get any idea
of the accuracy of the responses of "Yes, I am familiar".
For those who tested positive for knowing Darwin and evolution, can
anyone doubt that the percentage of those who accept evolution would
be significantly higher?
> I also wonder how much religion might have played a factor, and
> from there, demographics. Just the fact that someone would
> comission such a poll suggests to me that the was a built in bias
> and that the originator had an interest in seeing some interesting
> results.
The biases of whoever commisioned the survey for what reasons don't
matter. What matters is the survey design and in particular, whether
the questions are framed in neutral terms or are "push poll" questions
designed to steer responses in one direction. A reputable pollster
will try to keep the questions neutral (they are the experts there)
and prevent the client from putting his thumb on the scale. Even if
the client is trying to keep his questions neutral, a good polling
outfit will point out any problems and suggest better ways to frame
the questions. Been there, done that.
> Always skeptical of polls and statistics.
As we all should be - but only for the right reasons. That's why you
have to read everything that is critical to a poll: Who commissioned
it, how the sampling population was defined and respondents were
selected, how they were contacted, the instructions given to the
actual pollers, all the actual survey questions and branching rules
thereof, how "unable to reach" and "refused to answer" cases were
handled, how and why respondents and their responses may have been
stratified, plus the usual statistical information like sample size,
the claimed margin of error PLUS the confidence level for that level
of margin of error (you hardly ever see that last one).
IMO you're reading too much into the motives for the poll. In fact,
sometimes polls like this are commissioned by churches and others who
you might think have a bias in favor of favorable religious views, but
they truly and only want accurate results. However, lacking the
analysis that I just described (and am not going to do), I can't
dispositively refute your concerns.
Bruce Remick
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Is7kl.2029$N02....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
I guess they're not really "concerns". More like skeptical peeves which
seldom affect me personally. Like you pointed out, the only way to truly
judge the validity of any poll results is to have access to the actual
questions asked, a recording of the actual session, personal background
details of each pollee(?) along with what part of the country they lived in.
Totally impractical and unlikely. It just peeves me when any poll results
are announced and then are treated as foundations on which to build
additional projections. But I still get much more upset to find that I'm
out of beer.
.
Bruce Remick
So from what you say, it would seem near impossible to corral enough
educated open-minded, unbiased individuals to ever conduct a meaningful
poll. If you know Darwin you're out. If you never heard of him you're out.
If religion plays a significant part in your life you're out. If you're an
atheist you're out. If you own more than one Darwin medal you're
out...........
note.boy
"Jud" <numis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7bd5f589-55a5-4d2c...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
If your head is frozen inside a block of ice and your feet are on fire then
statiscally, on average, you are perfectly fine. Billy
mazorj
"note.boy" <note...@naespamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:%Klkl.28982$nx....@newsfe10.ams2...
You must be an engineer of some type. :-D
We'd kid ours with the a variant of that: "An engineer is someone who
thinks that if your left foot is in a bucket of boiling water and your
right foot is in a bucket of ice water, on average you're
comfortable." The funny thing was that 81.717% of them agreed!
mazorj
>
> "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Is7kl.2029$N02....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:L34kl.5921$_A2....@newsfe22.iad...
...
>>> I still would be interested in learning if Harris only counted a
>>> response from individuals who already were familiar with Darwin
>>> and his work.
>>
>> Right away you run into trouble. Plenty of creationists and ID
>> advocates think they know their Darwin. You'd have to ask a
>> battery of questions about Darwin and evolution before you could
>> get any idea of the accuracy of the responses of "Yes, I am
>> familiar".
>>
>> For those who tested positive for knowing Darwin and evolution, can
>> anyone doubt that the percentage of those who accept evolution
>> would be significantly higher?
>
> So from what you say, it would seem near impossible to corral enough
> educated open-minded, unbiased individuals to ever conduct a
> meaningful poll. If you know Darwin you're out. If you never heard
> of him you're out. If religion plays a significant part in your life
> you're out. If you're an atheist you're out. If you own more than
> one Darwin medal you're out...........
Maybe I misunderstood what you were driving at with "I still would be
interested in learning if Harris only counted a response from
individuals who already were familiar with Darwin and his work." My
point was that in order to do that, you can't just ask the question
"Are you familiar with Darwin and his work?" to screen and limit the
participants to those who actually know enough about Darwin and
evolution. Most anti-Darwinians fancy themselves as knowledgeable, as
in "Know thine enemy" even though in the vast majority of cases,
whatever they "know" comes from sermons and diatribes reviling him
(and maybe a feature episode or two on the History Channel). And
since most people don't like to admit ignorance even in an anonymous
poll, you'll have another block of respondents who don't know jack
about Charles but will say they do.
What trips me up here is that you shifted your stated criteria from
"only including those familiar with Darwin and his work," to excluding
just about everybody because in your view they cannot be "educated
open-minded, unbiased individuals" if they know Darwin, if they don't
know Darwin, if they never heard of him, if they are religious or if
they are atheist. Sure, that excludes just about everybody, but
that's not what you asked in your original question.
I took the original question to mean "Did they only poll people with
enough knowledge to intelligently answer the questions" or did they
interview "any warm body that answered the telephone"? In most
surveys you want true random selection (no, not evolutionary random
selection, just statistically random selection) because you want truly
representative slices of all members of the overall population.
So if you wanted to limit respondents only to people who have an
accurate and adequate (even if only a layman's) grasp of Darwin and
evolution, first they'd have to pass a moderately tough quiz on the
topic. I don't know why you'd want to do it that way. The results
would only confirm that "the vast majority of people who really know
evolution think it's a valid scientific model." As I said, that's
already a no-brainer. Most surveys want to know what the entire
population thinks, not just one limited slice of it. And in reporting
the results of the poll, you would have to state your findings with
the limiting condition "Among people who have an accurate and adequate
understanding of Darwin and evolution..."
To keep this on topic, I would only rule you out if you had two or
more Darwin medals. One is just a random selection by you in the
evolution of your holdings. Two or more indicates some intended
design (intelligent or not) in your acquisition of things Darwinian.
;-)
Bruce Remick
Not being a statistician, I really don't know how I would handle such a
survey if I wanted to get a true and meaningful result. First, I would
probably rule out anyone I asked about Darwin who had never heard of him or
his theories. That might be the subject for another survey. I would
probably like to uncover something more thought provoking than the
predictable opinions likely given by various groups of people.
>
> What trips me up here is that you shifted your stated criteria from "only
> including those familiar with Darwin and his work," to excluding just
> about everybody because in your view they cannot be "educated
> open-minded, unbiased individuals" if they know Darwin, if they don't know
> Darwin, if they never heard of him, if they are religious or if they are
> atheist. Sure, that excludes just about everybody, but that's not what
> you asked in your original question.
I guess my thought was that it would seem to be impossible to conduct a
random survey while trying to ensure that a cross section of society is
included in it. It's not as simple as asking whether you're for Obama or
McCain because the majority of people have heard of them and have developed
opinions.
>
> I took the original question to mean "Did they only poll people with
> enough knowledge to intelligently answer the questions" or did they
> interview "any warm body that answered the telephone"? In most surveys
> you want true random selection (no, not evolutionary random selection,
> just statistically random selection) because you want truly representative
> slices of all members of the overall population.
>
> So if you wanted to limit respondents only to people who have an accurate
> and adequate (even if only a layman's) grasp of Darwin and evolution,
> first they'd have to pass a moderately tough quiz on the topic. I don't
> know why you'd want to do it that way. The results would only confirm
> that "the vast majority of people who really know evolution think it's a
> valid scientific model." As I said, that's already a no-brainer. Most
> surveys want to know what the entire population thinks, not just one
> limited slice of it. And in reporting the results of the poll, you would
> have to state your findings with the limiting condition "Among people who
> have an accurate and adequate understanding of Darwin and evolution..."
That would be one way. I don't see how you could conduct a poll asking the
entire population what it thinks of Plato when only the educated are likely
to have heard enough about him to form any kind of an opinion. If I
commissioned such a poll, I would want responses only from that educated
population segment.
note.boy
Statistics was a subject I covered at school.
I love the TV adverts where 87% of women agree that super duper face cream
with extract of skunk improves the condition of their skin and the sample
size is something like 113 women questioned, such a small sample is
meaningless, I get the impression that they question 1,000 women and the
pick the sequence of replies that suit them best, e.g. replies 455 to 568.
Billy
mazorj
That's unnecessary overkill and it can leave an obvious statistical
paper trail of how the books were cooked.
It's been known for years that consumer preference tests can be rigged
using human factors exploits: Subtle changes in the tester's voicing,
facial expressions, gestures, etc, when presenting Sample A and then
Sample B. The client's soda is served only at a refreshing chilled
temperature, the competition's is barely below room temperature. The
client's facial tissue is nuked for a few seconds to make it
pleasantly warmer to the touch than the competition's. The brightness
and color of the ambient lighting is more flattering to the color of
the client's product. The ice in the client's beverage is made from
pristine, taste-neutral distilled water while the ice for the
competition is made from some source of tap or bottled water with
subtle unpleasant trace elements. Then there's the old quiz show
gimmick of not so subtly interrupting the subject's decision-making
process if he/she appears to be heading toward the "wrong" answer.
It's not perfect but it's good enough to steer preference test results
to the point that marketing weasels can play around with them. Notice
how all our human senses are enlisted in their game of exploits.
It doesn't hurt if the subject picks up on these cues consciously or
unconsciously. In fact, usually it's better if they do. The test
subjects may not be rocket scientists but they get the drift of what's
going on and willingly play along because of three natural human urges
in most people: They want to please the authority figure (the
tester); some feel compelled to make sure they jump through the right
hoops to get the honorarium for participating; and the self-centered
show-offs are highly aware of the presence of a video camera (or the
possibility of a "hidden" camera) so they rightly calculate that
enthusiastic cooperation by over-reacting to the sponsor's sample
increases the odds that they will be used in a commercial that will be
seen all over the airwaves (and possibly at payment rates much higher
than the token honorarium for participating).
Consumer product marketers also take a page from the pharmaceutical
manufacturers' playbook: Run multiple, unconnected trials using small
numbers of participants and cherry pick only the best ones. Pharma
does that a lot because A.) The scoring is far less subjective (the
subjects either get better with greater frequency (or they don't) at
rates higher or lower than the national average, and B.) It's
extremely difficult to exert human factors exploits when the subjects
are taking their research meds over a long stretch and usually in the
privacy of their homes.
So when the respondents number in the low hundreds instead of the gold
standard of 1000+, randomly occurring wide variations in the test
scores occur over repeated independent trials That gives the marketers
a pool of (erroneous) above-average test scores. Bury the unfavorable
average and below-average trials and you can easily skew the
"results".
Big, reputable polling houses avoid these tactics because they want to
preserve their reputations. OTOH, boutique pollsters and doctors who
get paid 6-figures to be one of the test administrators know what the
client would like to get for his money. They're not all
intellectually dishonest but the client only needs enough favorable
test results - often just one will do! - to justify claiming that
"Four out of five compulsive hand washers prefer the soothing action
of Adolph's OCD Liquid Germicidal Soap."