Ah, those charitable believers...
Michael Siemon
_Faith of Physicians Not a Factor in Caring for the Poor_
Although most religious traditions call on the faithful to serve the
poor, a large cross-sectional survey of U.S. physicians found that
physicians who are more religious are slightly less likely to practice
medicine among the underserved than physicians with no religious
affiliation. The study, by researchers from Chicago and Yale New Haven
Hospital, appears in the July/August Annals of Family Medicine:
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/070730.curlin.shtml
chris.li...@gmail.com
Notice how the U. of Chicago News Office doesn't even have an accurate
headline- is this to avoid making religious people feel bad about the
truth? Instead of "Religious doctors no more likely to care for
underserved patients" they should write, "Religious doctors less
likely to care for underserved patients". I thought at first they
would say something like "no statistical difference" but that's not
mentioned in the article at all.
Chris
Michael Siemon
"chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
I doubt, from the sample size, that the difference is statistically
significant -- but don't let that stop you from venting your biases...
Will in New Haven
> In article <1186512064.342993.70...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
I don't think it is statistically significant. On the other hand, if
you read the stuff the religious people post here about how
"Darwinism" is an excuse for doing anything we want, about how badly
people will behave if they don't believe in god and all the other
things that are said about people who don't go along with their
beliefs, I don't think you would be so judgmental.
Oddly enough, as a libertarian, I run into a similar attempt by people
on the left to equate political fiscal conservatism with private
stinginess and, even worse, to equate a liberal hand with public funds
with political generosity.
Will in New Haven
--
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Michael Siemon
I am not being judgmental -- I regard the study as substantiating
(to a very limited but interesting extent) the null hypothesis that
we are all much the same. In the same vein, I regard the rather silly
attempt to "explain" the "sprituality" effect in the study as also
unsubstantiated (though it would pander to my own prejudices, to be
sure :-))
>
> Oddly enough, as a libertarian,
<snip>
You don't want to hear my opinion of "Libertarians".
chris.li...@gmail.com
> In article <1186512064.342993.70...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
Why is it a bias to say that religious doctors are less likely to
administer to underserved populations if (a) they don't mention
statistical significance in the article, and (b) "31 percent of
physicians who were more religious [...] practiced among the
underserved, compared to 35 percent of physicians who described their
religion as atheist, agnostic or none."?
What you doubt is immaterial. They don't mention statistical
significance in the article *you* linked to. If they aren't going to
discuss the stats in the body of the article, don't include that
conclusion in the headline. If it is so important to them, they should
include the kind of throwaway line that's always included in articles
about polls: the margin of error is plus or minus X percent (they
could even- almost legitimately- use standard error for that).
What they did was at best misleading, and at worst an out and out
misrepresentation.
Chris
Michael Siemon
"chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sigh. I haven't read the cited article, but surely you have noticed
that in the typical electoral polls (with numbers of respondents at
least as large as this study) that there are notes about "margins of
error" and the like in the 3-5% range. When the question you raise
occurred to me (as it did, immediately, in reading the article -- do
you take me for a fool?), the answer to the question seemed rather
obvious. It still does[*].
I'd be perfectly happy to skewer the pretensions of the evangelicals
who insist on "witnessing" (i.e., shouting their prejudices and
hatred to all and sundry) with a demonstrable failing of their kind.
But all _this_ study shows is that they are nothing special, one way
or another.
--
[*] Actually, I am rather pleased that my alma mater simply stated
the result, without flubbing it or trying to insinuate something that
is very much _not_ a valid conclusion. I am somewhat less happy about
the speculative crap about liberal vs. conservative divergence in
American Protestantism over the last century. I'm hoping that bit
comes from someone at Yale. :-) The notion that liberal/mainstream
American Protestantism is "spiritual" is giggle-inducing, at best.
> What you doubt is immaterial. They don't mention statistical
> significance in the article *you* linked to. If they aren't going to
> discuss the stats in the body of the article, don't include that
> conclusion in the headline. If it is so important to them, they should
> include the kind of throwaway line that's always included in articles
> about polls: the margin of error is plus or minus X percent (they
> could even- almost legitimately- use standard error for that).
>
> What they did was at best misleading, and at worst an out and out
> misrepresentation.
Oh, give it up. The article, like most "journalism", is rather pathetic.
To the extent that it correctly represents the study, the conclusion is
worth noting, so I did that.
Desertphile
There was a survey comparing charity among the religion and
non-religious, and the survey found a tiny fraction more charity
among the religious than the non-religious. The difference was so
small it was not statistically significant.
The survey should have compared the hyper-religious with the
moderates and the non-religious: it did not.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <1186512064....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> "chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 2:21 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > > blurb from an alumni email...
> > >
> > > _Faith of Physicians Not a Factor in Caring for the Poor_
> > >
> > > Although most religious traditions call on the faithful to serve the
> > > poor, a large cross-sectional survey of U.S. physicians found that
> > > physicians who are more religious are slightly less likely to practice
> > > medicine among the underserved than physicians with no religious
> > > affiliation. The study, by researchers from Chicago and Yale New Haven
> > > Hospital, appears in the July/August Annals of Family
> > > Medicine:http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/070730.curlin.shtml
> >
> > Notice how the U. of Chicago News Office doesn't even have an accurate
> > headline- is this to avoid making religious people feel bad about the
> > truth? Instead of "Religious doctors no more likely to care for
> > underserved patients" they should write, "Religious doctors less
> > likely to care for underserved patients". I thought at first they
> > would say something like "no statistical difference" but that's not
> > mentioned in the article at all.
> I doubt, from the sample size, that the difference is statistically
> significant -- but don't let that stop you from venting your biases...
Stating a fact is "bias?" How very funny.
Note that there *SHOULD* have been a statistically signoficant
result is cultists' claims were true: the false belief that
beliving in the gods and following religious teachings (in this
case, the Christian cult) makes a person more moral, ethical, and
humane.
Free Lunch
Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> wrote in
<lgfnb3dtd3rfuo6b1...@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:21:44 -0700, Michael Siemon
><mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> blurb from an alumni email...
>>
>> _Faith of Physicians Not a Factor in Caring for the Poor_
>>
>> Although most religious traditions call on the faithful to serve the
>> poor, a large cross-sectional survey of U.S. physicians found that
>> physicians who are more religious are slightly less likely to practice
>> medicine among the underserved than physicians with no religious
>> affiliation. The study, by researchers from Chicago and Yale New Haven
>> Hospital, appears in the July/August Annals of Family Medicine:
>> http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/070730.curlin.shtml
>
>There was a survey comparing charity among the religion and
>non-religious, and the survey found a tiny fraction more charity
>among the religious than the non-religious. The difference was so
>small it was not statistically significant.
>
>The survey should have compared the hyper-religious with the
>moderates and the non-religious: it did not.
Did the survey count church donations as 'charity'?
Desertphile
Good question: I do not know. I'll see if Google can find the
article.
Danwood
treatment at a minimum for slow and non-paying patients. Such
patients are not always poor. Some affluent people are slow in
meeting their obligations.
Danwood