Sangderenard

I should clarify that the proff that said it was bad but an honest attempt was the physics proff that destributed the survey. He said it was given to several schools in the district. Once I was told it was district sanctioned I kinda gave up hope on it.

Response to j__p from that other guy: 5. Its simply wrong. There is no way a "hypothesis" is a "conclusion", whatever kind, much less a specific subtype of "conclusion". 7. Maybe this will explain it. Hypothesis: "There exists some entity X, which we are presently unable to detect directly with present instrumentation or due to lack of a theory of its properties, such that an act or acts of Entity X brought into existence both the universe (visible and invisible) and this planet we presently reside upon. A suitable test for this hypothesis awaits the development of more sophisticated knowledge in the field." In principle thats no different from scientists prior to the discovery of Fluorine hypothesising: "There exists some element X, which we are presently unable to detect, that when allowed to react in some manner with salt is capable of removing the chlorine from its NaCl bond. A suitable test for this hypothesis awaits the development of more sophistiocated knowledge in the field." Nobody has proven as far as I can tell, that "God", if such a being were defined with precision (however you chose to), or his absence, would be incapable of scientific detection, measurement or testing, given better understanding of its "nature". Similar to gravity waves, the hypothesised entity known casually as "God" awaits a theory which allows its possible properties to be predicted and suitable tests innovated. Thats identical to finding hypothesised subatomic particles or gravity waves... its possible they exist, possible they dont, pick a theory, identify potntial properties or secondary effects, test for them, repeat. The concept some people have that "God" (if existant) could never be detected by means of some suitable measuring device is merely an "act of faith". Its not as far as I can tell, a scientific belief. (If someone believes such a view *is* scientific, please provide in response an experiment to support this alternate hypothesis) After all, whatever "it" may be, if it exists it is not unreasonable to suspect it has some properties such as energy and the like, which could be the subject of an experiment, in the same way graviton detectors are used to test the existence or lack of detection of gravitons and gravity waves, which are unproven but would tend to support or disprove other theories. The lesson here is, do not be blinkered in your science by preconception of what is, and what isnt, what could be detected somehow and what couldnt. Many things that were vague superstition yesterday became science later. Define your terms carefully, be suspicious of terms with heavy duty pre-loaded meanings and cultural assumptions, examine hidden assumptions critically, and be open to finding what was known yesterday is less than what'll be known tomorrow. Thats as important a lesson as hypotheesis - test. More so, becaue it sets the limits to what you can even see as worth hypothesising and testing in the first place. Critical lesson. 10. We agree the term is ill defined. To set a question which depends upon the "correct" use of two terms which are in fact sometimes-interchangeable and whose use is so vague that the question cannot be accurately answered, is a dud question. 13. I'd agree. The reply is right. But in practice all one can say scientifically is, "I have yet to see a counter example". As number theorists and scientists will point out, generalising this is dangerous. Also see questions 9 and 11. You don't set 2 questions highlighing that in science, "everything is subject to modification, every law and theory subject to change", and then slip in a question whose answer is "this untested belief is always and eternally true." Thats abysmal logic !! In effect the question asks a scientist to generalise from "I, not having seen a counter example nor having ever set up any kind of scientific test to examine this hypothesis, have never personally heard of a perfect instrument" to "All results seen and unseen, performed to date or performable, will contain errors". In science, that kind of sloppy reasoning is a big no-no. I would be appalled if a researcher under me, drew conclusions that way. Its an act of faith, "They all have errors", and whilst its (I believe) an accurate one, its important to realise it is still just that, an act of faith. It has never been tested to that degree of rigor. Again, to be crystal clear, my objection isn't what we believe in practice to be so. Its the slipperiness of logic that is itself anathema to good science, being introduced in a science paper. Richard Feynman commented the same, on text books that ask you to add temperatures of stars. Its appalling science, because of the example it sets, and it's plain wrong. 17. The question wasn't "what would you do". It was, in a test on hypothesis and method, "You have two readings. They differ. Without further information or comment, what would you _conclude_?" My conclusion would not be any of those. My reply is, I lack information to draw a conclusion at present, without setting up hypotheses and testing. That is the correct answer to what you can "conclude" on the basis of the information given, there is no other answer possible. 18. Note: the question wasnt "precision" or "accuracy". It was "precision", "accuracy" or "exactitude". I'm not sure technically what the definition of "exactitude" is, if it has a relevant technical definition taught in school in the USA, so I didnt answer. If its a red herring then I agree, but I simply haven't got that information handy. 19. Yeah. 6 am tiredness. Its D. Afterthought: Most scientists (including social science) pilot their surveys first, or test their experimental design on a small scale or with peer review beforehand. This is a good example why that is a commendable approach. A survey of this kind should be tested with a few people and professors, to identify and iron out possible criticisms and flaws. That's also part of the scientific method.

Word I'm getting from the prof that I got it from is that its just a poorly done but honest attempt to guage the scientific reasoning of students in gen ed science courses in colleges around the state. At this point it just seems to be yet another case of incompetence in the oklahoma school system.

I think you're forgetting the new and arbitrary nature of the definition of adolescent, which is where we've stuck the sexually capable (biologically speaking) group of "children" who in every lower income area are adults and commonly marry. Not to mention the rather unscientific and inflamatory support of stigmatizing. It risks portraying you as insecure of your distance from a catagory when you admit to the prevelance of something near it, even defend that prevelance, but attack it all the same with an arguement that smacks of nothing but cheep sensationalism. Now I'm not defending criminals of this sort. I think there's a serious issue if those activities seem appropriate. But what I am saying is that "A more fitting label would be monsters" has absolutely no place on a forum pretending to be scientific.

Well technically shouldn't a survey be clear enough that an expert isn't necessary? The fact that we need experts to decrypt this *expletive deleted* should show that it has fundimentally, as an accurate survey, failed. Though I'm going to see about getting my sociology proff to look over it. I don't know if he has any specific grounding in the physical sciences but he might be able to see some elements of survey bullshittery that havn't yet been identified. There's more to this thing I think than just whats seen. So many people claim it's a straightforward and easy to answer survey with accurate questions and answers. There's got to be a reason the majority of people find it so run in the mill and perfect (some of whom have been fairly well educated) while a handfull are finding it deplorable. Someones not saying or understanding something.

Here are the comments I got from a british science higher degree on the survey. He puts into words what was giving me the gut aversion to the questions and answers. ------- 1 T 2 F 3 - you DO predict the results, in order to formulate good tests. Whatever that answer is. (I cant figure the double negative which itself is a wording problem! A good examination should be clear) I defy ANYONE to find me an experimental scientist who does NOT attempt to predict in some measure, the results he might expect, on some experiments, in order to identify possible flaws, gather additional measurements, ensure the experiment is useful or has appropriate controls, and generally to design the experiment. "I am going to test without having a clue what kind of results I might get" is often (not always) a source of trouble. Whats important isnt "dont predict". Predicting is fine, its useful, it tells you what to look for and how to make the experiment more rigorous and useful. What matters is, when you do the experiment, be neutrally open to all possibilities so you dont accidentally introduce bias or overlook anything in your work or conclusions. So: D or none of them 4. Can you have a hypothesis that cant be tested, that is "scientific". Not sure..... If you mean "testable now" then some scientific questions are not testable now. "The particle with atomic weight 140 decays in 3 milliseconds" is one. We havent made that yet, so we cant test it. But its scientific. If you mean "testable at all" then thats the "not sure". Where do we put items which are in principle true or false and therefore somewhere in the universe/creation, that knowledge must exist, but which that may never be testable in a lab? Can these ever be "scientific" regardless? Don't know, thats philosophy and I dont major in that Can you have an experiment with non repeatable results, and it be "scientific". Yes. Suppose you have a sensible hypothesis, sensible test, and so on, and the results are not predictably repeateable, all this means is, EITHER it is inherently unpredictable (quark, radioactive decay etc), there is some higher rule at work you dont know, or whatever, but all this means is, the work was scientific, but no useful results were obtained. You cant edit nature to "make" it work or fit rules. Sometimes "we got complete unpredictability" is merely a sign something else is up, and a perfectly good result. Sometimes it eliminates side alleys. 5. C is the desired answer, but its wrong. A "conclusion" is the decison you make AFTER the experiment. A hypothesis is basically the speculative statement or possibility you are specifying BEFOREHAND, to test against nature and see if nature acts as the hypothesis suggests. See any dictionary. NONE of those are right, a hypothesis is NO WAY a "conclusion", unverified or otherwise. Author of that question should be shot. 6 False, obviously 7. False. It is scientific, because, in principle, there is not reason it lies outside science. It is certain that it is true or false, or the answer and question can be refined with fuirther knowledge. The fact we *at present* have no accepted test or defintion for this word "God" does not invalidate it being a scientficc question. Accurately put, it is at present, a scientific hypothesis that is *at present* untestable but may become so with advances in science in future 8 A 9 F Oddly this is false for 2 reasons not one. 1) Yes, they can be, but also 2) the statement that "like govt laws..." contains an assumption that's wrong as well, so the logical statement is wrong for 2 reasons. 10. Dud question. Compare "Boyles law" and the "Theory of Relativity". What determines the name, apart from time and custom? Both these have been "repeatedly tested and found to be valid" over many many years. Now compare "theory of relativity" and "string theory". One has been very heavily "tested and found to be valid" under many extreme circumstances, the other has not been tested but is merely proposed as a possibility. So some "theories" are tested and found valid etc and some are not. That means the question itself is meaningless: the "definition" doesnt actually apply consistently to the word "theory" on its own in the first place. Some are, some arent. 11 T 12 T. (but not when choosing the questions, note) 13 AARGGHHHHHH!!! Thats a *hypothesis*, not a fact. I have not seen a scientific test to verify that this will "always" be the case in 100.00000% of experiments, therefore this is not a scientifically accurate statement. It is not proven. 99% yes, maybe, if you were to test it. Not 100% yet. (but that said the "correct" answer is T) 14. B 15 T 16 Dud question. Which exact field experiment? All of them? Some? One specific one that was done by a 5 year old? 17. None. Appalling question, the examiner is clearly an ignorant man in his own field. I would never "conclude" __ANY__ of those. I would set up hypotheses, and test the balances, and test gravity, and test magnetic fields, and test many things, before "concluding". The question is appalling, it assumes you jump to conclusions -- in a paper whose whole focus is on the hypothesis - test cycle !!!!! 18 technical term, not sure. 19 A 20 B 21 - 23 who knows Examiner's grade: 70%. A decent paper but needs revision to correct flaws of principle and of wording. if the examiner is an expert, grade = 45%. That's because his answers actually betray a basic lack of true appreciation of his own subject material - it is strikingly reminiscent of "those who cant, teach", and he misleads students by so doing, which is by itself, criminal in my book.

_Excellent_ point. It could be to judge autonomic responses to questions, judging how people react to the unfair questions. However I question the accuracy of that approach. I wrangled a guy with schooling far beyond my own to critique it, his summary of the survey will follow later tonight.

The negative responses are, I think, the opposite of what you expect. Me and a few others have had gut reactions to the wording of the questions leading us to believe that someone is pushing an agenda. While it can't be determined if its a creationist or scientific agenda it seems that some questions are a little goading and some are obviously meaningless fluff surrounding them. Some of the questions aren't quite as clear cut in the way they could be interpreted by the lay person, answered, and used later as statistical fact. Personally it looks to me like the survey is hoping to portray an unrealistic number of students in favor of creationism being forced into science classes. I'll note that the survey was given in oklahoma and most of the people having problems with it (seeing it as charged with a creationist agenda) are liberal college students here in oklahoma.

There are more and more people within communities of those whose mere interests (note: not actions) put them at risk of being violently stigmatized who see a problem with scientific research on their groups. They know the people being questioned aren't being asked the right questions or are only being questioned if arrested, thus polluting the sample pool. It is for this reason, I think, that more and more of them are trying to timidly and anonymously reach out to scientific communities for understanding so that eventually the stigma would be changed or at least put up for discussion. Some are even going to work trying to put together valid survey data. The trouble is, as soon as you admit to having these interests you lose all credibility and possibly certain aspects of your livelyhood. Anyhow, that's what thoughts on the subject I have.

I was asked at the end of a physics class to take this survey. Immediately it seemed like an odd survey, something not quite right. So I decided not to participate in it given my worries as to how my responses would be interpreted. I took a copy of it home and scanned it and asked a few people what they thought. The opinions of the survey were far more polarized than I anticipated, many seeing absolutely nothing wrong with it, even supporting it as a well done survey, and few feeling the same way I did. Without implying too much of my stance here, I thought it appropriate to stop trying to convey what I saw in it and just gather opinions on the problems the survey may have. To that end, I present it here under the science of sociology to see if anybody, from a sociological standpoint, has any opinions on the soundness of the survey. front back