Scientific Method Survey (Sociology)

[Sangderenard]

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

[Bluenoise]

I see nothing that really stands out compared to other surverys. Asks about scienctific methods and then attempts to see if the person is taking more science courses.

[Martin]

I was asked at the end of a physics class to take this survey. Immediately it seemed like an odd survey' date=' 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

 

you were right to put this in sociology forum. your post raises some issues about US Society where an anti-science reaction is going on. evolution (part of the science of biology) is under attack by Fund. Xian. Conservatives.

big bang cosmology, with expanding universe, is under attack. the ethics of certain kinds of genetic and medical research are exciting people's violent feelings, rightly or wrongly. the state of science education is very bad. US students have fallen farther and farther behind their agemates in other industrialized countries.

 

EMPIRICAL SCIENCE IS A HUMAN TRADITION ONLY ABOUT 400 YEARS OLD.

THIS TRADITION IS FRAGILE AND CAN BE ATTACKED AND CAN DIE.

WE CAN HYPOTHESIZE THAT DURING THE CURRENT ATTACK ON SCIENCE AND SWING OF SECTIONS OF PUBLIC OPINION AGAINST SCIENCE THAT FEWER AND FEWER AMERICANS WILL HAVE A CLEAR IDEA OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

 

Your questionaire is very simple and IMHO 40 years ago would not have been perceived as threatening or confusing by, say, US Highschool Seniors.

As far as I can see all the questions about scientific method are straightforward and have clear answers. The whole thing is non-theatening.

 

BUT NOW I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW WHAT REACTIONS you are getting of people getting their feathers ruffled and having feelings of alienation from science.

 

I bet that nowadays when lots of americans watch the soap opera called

"joan of arcadia" and lots of them are feeling that SCIENCE IS ALIEN to them and they are turning for COMFORT to various supernatural stuff and superstition and faithbase belief systems. I suspect they dont know as well how to keep science and religion separate and how to be objective and play by science rules when they are doing science.

 

So this is a bad situation and our country and our economy is going to be harmed by voters and workforce getting stupider and stupider.

We get stupider about foreign policy and stupider about science policy.

stupider about environment policy, and so on.

 

So this questionaire looks to me completely harmless, a no-brainer.

But because of the antiscience shift in the US public I think it might be a tell-tale, one way that one can tell which way the wind is blowing.

 

Please tell us some of the reactions you have gotten from fellow students.

what questions do they have issues with?

[Sangderenard]

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.

[j_p]

I was completely comfortable reading the second page [after the first]; 16 through 20 seem to be honest attempts to guage the readers' knowledge.

 

But I definitely sense some hidden agenda on the first page; I'm just not certain what. No single question jumps out at me, except the one about God. And would a person who doesn't know what 'hypothesis' means know what a parallax error is?

 

The wording of most of the questions on the front have a bias, but both "pro-science" and "anti-science" bias is demonstrated. If this is a survey designed to elicit a certain response, it is either very poorly done or incredibly sophisticated.

 

I think the anti-science bias outway the pro-.

 

I think this is an experiment from another class; can you find out if any students got similar surveys, with slightly different questions?

 

Of course, it could be intended to support extra funding for the science in your school; "See, 60 % of the students in science courses don't know what the scientific method is!"

[Sangderenard]

_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.

[j_p]

Sources of experimental error are never meaningless fluff.

 

But I get your point. You suspect a sophisticated anti-science agenda [i take back my "incredibly"].

 

Still, Question 7 should take the wind out of any Creationist sails; no-one would disagree and it is the reason creationists infuriate some scientist: religion isn't science.

 

Maybe the survey has a sophisticated anti-creationist agenda; most people would say Question 2 is false, question 15 is true [and both those questions are designed to elicit those responses], and question 7 is true. How would those results be interpreted?

 

I would still like to know if there is a slightly different survey being given; will you keep us informed?

[j_p]

I subscribed to this post; I don't even subscribe to my own.

 

Did you ever see a BBC show, I think it is about ten years old, about a machievellian British politician who eventually becomes Prime Minister? One of the characters gives a great description on how the questions in a survey are written to force certain responses.

[Sangderenard]

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.

[j_p]

Question 5: is that a poorly worded choice, or an indication of bias?

 

Question 7: I fundamentally disagree with you [or your associate?].

 

Question 10: Is it a dud question or a failure of scientific terminology? Maybe there should be a term between Theory and Law.

 

Question 12: A very important source of bias in science, the choosing of the questions; few scientist will admit that.

 

Question 13: You may be right, but I'd bet my mortgage payment that it's true. Science measures things; if no measuring device is perfect, there will be experimental error.

 

Question 17: I would recalibrate both balances; but, in the interest of peace, I would merely assume it necessary. [i missed that choice of words.]

 

Question 18: arrgh. Accuracy. The difference between accuracy and precision is fundamental in analyzing your data.

 

Question 19: Isn't it "D"?

 

Now, can we get a sociologist or psychologist with a firm grounding in science to check out the survey?

[Sangderenard]

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.

[j_p]

But our premise is that this is not a legitimate survey; it has been designed to elicit specific responses. But, as a chemist, I am not certain; it could just be a bad survey.

 

So we need the opinion of an expert on surveys; a sociologist, psychologist, and/or a linguist. However, we need such experts with grounding in the hard science, so he can recognize the scientific inaccuracies.

 

So, let me know how things go with your sociology prof.

[ecoli]

There are a lot of true/false questions based on opinion...is that done on purpose?

[Sangderenard]

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.

[Sangderenard]

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.

[j_p]

Response to j__p from that other guy:

 

 

5. Its simply wrong. There is no way a "hypothesis" is a "conclusion"' date=' whatever kind, much less a specific subtype of "conclusion".

[/quote']

 

The words "conclude" and "conclusion" are used incorrectly in two places, questions 5 and the one about the balance; does this indicate a lack of fundamental understanding of the basic principles of science and the language, or an intentional bias in the questions? Maybe the mistake is deliberate and is intended to camoflage more subtle misrepresentations of scientific method.

 

7. Maybe this will explain it. see above for explanation j.

 

I did understand you, but I still disagree; I don't want to get side tracked here. I may answer this later.

 

[aside]

The lesson here is, do not be blinkered in your science by preconception of what is, and what isnt...

[giggle]Oh, that is not my problem.[/giggle]

[/aside]

 

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.

Again, does this indicate ignorance or an attempt to elicit a specific response?

 

13. ... in practice all one can say scientifically is, "I have yet to see a counter example".

I think I am going to come out a bit stronger in favor of True; science is about measuring; no instrument [or scientist] is perfect; therefore error will occur.

 

Instruments are machines; machines are manufactured within certain tolerances; machines wear out. [An instrument may be capable of giving accurate results with the necessary precision when used correctly and properly calibrated, but that is not perfect; that is good enough].

 

Analysts are not machines; their tolerance is more variable [a little scientific pun there] and their accuracy is usually significantly less than the instrument.

 

And then there is the sample being measured. Samples change while being measured, not just by the act of measuring. Imagine trying to weigh out exactly one milligram of acetone [i know you wouldn't, but you see my point.]

 

The measurment system [instrument, analyst, sample] can not be perfect.

[Maybe I did just respond to 7.]

 

17. Non technical use of the word "conclude" in a technical question. Bias or ignorance?

[Actually, I don't assume my balance is out of calibration anymore, I presume it.]

18. Note: the question wasnt "precision" or "accuracy". It was "precision", "accuracy" or "exactitude".

Definitely precision; I am very sensitive on this subject. At work I am required to report results with a false degree of precision. Drives me batshit.

 

I still am not convinced this was an innocently bad survey. Does that indicate a [unwarrented] high opinion of the communication skills of my fellows, or paranoia?

 

Is there a psychology professor we can run it by?

[Spyman]

Well, as I live across the ocean and thus can't fully interpret the 'motion' of Your countrys opinions, I may be terrible wrong.

 

But reading through the test really gave me an 'cold chill'. It may very well be just a bad formulated survey, but most likely it's a highly sofisticated political survey with a negative purpose against science.

 

If You do the survey You have to choose between the already given answers, if You don't, You won't contribute to the statistics. Both ways the 'bad guys' win.

 

There has always been and will always be mighty forces at work against science and if let to grow in the dark they will end up powerful enough to throw us back to the 'dark ages'.

 

The important thing here is not to strip the survey down in details but to find out WHO is doing it and WHY ?

 

 

Edit:

After reading through my post again I realise I sound lika a paranoid lunatic predicting the end of the world.

So to bring down my thought's to the ground I give these links:

 

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_devore_evolution_050210.html

 

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_devore_theory_050303.html

 

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_censorship_050331.html

 

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050329_imax_letter.html

 

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050319_imax.html

 

Ask Yourselves this: If the childrens are prevented from their rights to learn about evolution as a scientific theory, how powerful organisation is needed to accomplish that ?

 

And if they succed, what will that lead to or what will be their next goal ?

[Xavier]

One of the great problems for a sociologist who must use questionaires as a source of a large proportion of collected data is the tendency of those questioned to try to guess the intent of the question rather than simply answering it to the best of their ability. For example, when question 17 asks what you would conclude from the different results reported by two apparently identical tests many of the respondents have suggested that the question is wrong because the answer that they would give does not provide the information to the questioner that the respondent believes the questioner is looking for.

If you answer the question as it is stated, most people here would answer "none of the above", though there is an argument for answer (e), combining the two results by averaging them, on pragmatic grounds (again, the respondent would not be likely to make this response as they are aware that the overall tone of the questions are towards the understanding of scientific method, not the practicalities even though averaging of results and allowing an implicit error is perfectly reasonable practice.) Thus the questioner would be able to divine something of the state of mind of the respondent in answering the other questions such as questions 2 and 7 both of which depend to an extent on the inclusiveness of the term "scientific" as used by the respondent.

 

Any other combination of answers to question 17 also indicates that the respondent is using the term "conclusion" differently - to mean 'a plausible solution to an apparent contradiction', for example, by which definition the answer © to question 5, The word "Hypothesis" means...c) an unverified conclusion, would also be valid.

 

On the subject of question 5, "Hypothesis" could, arguably, be said to means 'less than a thesis' so 'an unverified conclusion' is not an impossible paraphrase. Since the other answers to question 5 are clearly silly (especially since the term "hypothesis" was used in the previous question in expectation of its being understood) I suspect that the information that the questioner is hoping to derive from question 5 relates to the degree of care or hair-splitting that the respondent is indulging in. The question is well placed as the respondent is now far enough into the questionaire to be engaged but hasn't reached the more taxing or contentious questions yet.

 

The most notable point about the questions is the use of quotation marks around key terms and I suspect that this may be contributing to the sense that there is a hidden agenda: references to "Scientific Method", capitalised and quoted, appears to suggest the questioner is implying that it is just a name, a jargon term - 'the so-called "Scientific Method" '. I think that what the questioner is trying to suggest is that the term does not have an explicit meaning and that the respondent is invited to imply a meaning based on the answers to the questions. This effect is clearer in question 12 where the question states that 'Scientists try to remain "objective" during experiments.' and then asks the respondent to affirm or deny a definition of "objective" in this context. The reference to "Field Biology" in question 16 confirms this as there is no explicit definition of that term or for "scientifically proper". The question is so broad and undefined that the answer is likely to depend on the respondents perception of the breadth of activity that can be called science.

 

Note that in question 8 "scientific law" is not capitalised, nor is "scientifically proper" in question 16. I interpret this as a minor error in the formulation of the questions as those two phrases are not commonly bandied about (if "Law of Nature" had been substituted for "scientific law" I feel sure that it would have been capitalised.) However, I may have missed some additional trick - the 'error' may have been placed to illicit further information.

 

Overall, I see signs of great cleverness in the construction of this questionaire. The overuse of true/false questions (typically a good questionaire asks you to 'rate' the truth of a statement of 4- or 6-point scale so you can get an index of the confidence of the respondent and get some data from 'don't know' responses) may be done to make it appear less daunting (or to look more like an examination paper?) There are enough technical questions to make the respondent feel that there should be explicitly correct answers to all the questions and several of the questions reinforce elements of other questions (so if any of us filled in a reply, our overly intellectual analysis would make a distinct response pattern)

 

Two questions bother me, though; The 'God' question cannot offer any insight into respondents opinion of scientific validation as too many respondents will respond to their opinion of the validity of the statement itself and it isn't useful for discovering the respondents opinion with respect to faith because there is no reinforcing question (that I can spot).

The other is question 19, about Organism X's friends and family. The problem with it is that, however you look at it the same answer appears. From a superficial glance, organisms A and D are closest, geometrically, from other perspectives either A or D could be justified. The chart invites the strict mendelian interpretation - but that is just A and D again (both share 50% of their genes with X, on average). Perhaps it is intended as a technical-looking question that everyone can answer, in order to put the respondent into a better frame of mind before getting on to the administrative questions.

 

Of course the whole exercise could be aimed at question 21; a gruelling exam-style paper to remind a group of high-school pupils how difficult science can be before offering 'Wouldn't you prefer to go off to a nice four-year course at a college or university instead ?"

[j_p]

The important thing here is not to strip the survey down in details but to find out WHO is doing it and WHY ?

 

Edit:

After reading through my post again I realise I sound lika a paranoid lunatic predicting the end of the world.

 

Actually, I didn't think you sounded like a paranoid lunatic at all; a bit overly emphatic, definitely stressed, but completely rational.

 

However, I disagree with you on one point. It is very important to parse the survey; there are lots of young, non-paranoid people here who may not be sensitive to manipulation and propaganda, or, for that matter, how preconceptions can influence data collection and the resulting conclusions.

 

I would really like to know where this survey came from, too.

[j_p]

Xavier:

 

You defended the survey like a sociologist [at least, I think you did; I disagreed with a lot of it, but there is no point in repeating my thoughts]. Thank you very much for this perspective.

 

BTW, I think it is a good thing that most people try to figure out the intent in questions; do they usually try to figure the intent of the survey as a whole, as we are doing here?

 

Your observations about the use of quotations marks and title case are interesting; I completely dismissed them and mentally put them in the 'Bad Survey', rather than 'Slanted Survey', column.

 

I hadn't given due weight to the simple True/False questions either; but then the questions are a bit more black and white than most survey questions. I will definitely watch for that in future surveys.

 

The multiple choice, straight out the text book questions: I just accepted they were filler; I didn't think of a subtler purpose.

 

I am going to review the responses:

 

Bluenoise: harmless

Martin: harmless, but our suspicions are a result of a prevailing anti-science bias [that's kind of interesting ...]

Sangderenard: anti-science bias; gut reaction

Othery_Guy: anti-science bias; use of scientific terms, etc.

J_P: wavering between bad survey and anti-science bias

Ecoli: suspects something; survey structure, T/F ?s

Sociology Professor: bad survey, but honest

Spyman: anti-science bias; gut reaction

Xavier: anti-science bias; survey structure and non-scientific terms

 

So, people of very different back-grounds suspect an anti-science bias for very different reasons.

 

You've almost convinced me, but I still believe the survey could be a student's project.

 

But that's probably wishful thinking.

 

Spyman is right, Sangderenard; you should do something about this.

 

There is no name of the organization presenting the survey; isn't that unusual?

[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.

[j_p]

Oh. Your physics professor found it innocuous.

 

Oddly enough, now I am convinced that the survey has an anti-science/pro-religious political agenda.

 

I think you should write a letter to the president of the university and the board of directors, using the issues raised in this thread, protesting the distribution of a dubious survey with no acknowledged authors. Emphasize the points raised by Xavier, as they attack the survey as a survey, and can not be dismissed as a result of the poor state of scientific education in the US.

 

Or you could study for finals.