Dr,Ralph Hood jr
For weeks now on CARM the anti-intellectual faction (who argued against university having liberal arts) have been Trying to defuse the thunder in my 200 studies by demanding that I put one up on the board. Of cousre I can't do that because it would require typing a hundred pages in a text box. I offered to summarize one and the of course claimed that I was afraid to show it to them. I put up links of the studies begin talked about in articles and in a text book by the inverter of the M scale. That wasn't good enough they refused to even click on the link. I made the whole bibliography available to them. They refused to ever look up a single study.
I linked to various studies but they were all on Pub med or some other academic service that requires a subscription. They continued to taunt and tease for weeks "he refuses to put up a study so therefore he's lying they are no good blah blah blah." Finally I began to tease and taunt back. I said I would fly to the home of one of them and stay for 2 weeks and we read all the studies together every night until we read all 200 of them. Of cousre this guy wasn't about to do that. I offered to mail him a study and he wouldn't give me his address.
finally the one who started that strategy came down off his high horse and said I could summarize a study. I put up three summaries form my book. Immediately one of them gave tis response.
Wow, Meta, you're talking about this guy?:
Frankly, reading the study, reading about his methodology and what the study claims to do it is obvious that this is one of those studies you do because you are mildly interested in it, and a few students are willing to do the leg work.
It's not followed up by anything, and my biggest criticism is core the the study: it doesn't say anything. It's meaningless.
I conducted a similar study when I was in Graduate School, asking about how people perceived certain buildings and tried to create a methodology that would somehow standardize he experience of one building vs. another. All very subjective, but you try to nail some certain things down. In the end, I got lots of data and wrote a great paper on what it was supposed to have shown. I included where it failed.
In the end, it's just not a useful tool. People are similiar, so they have similar experiences and similar language from certain things. Some people are able to code-shift which makes them much more able to assume what the study is trying to discover even if they don't know the specific lingo.
All in all, lets face it, this is sociology. WTH. It's an art degree with graphs.
Let's put it into context. You are trying to test whether a generation or two of people use similar language to express the ineffable; the unknown.
When you view the human race (and predecessors as I do), as an animal with an exceptional brain but is fascinated with "the other", you realize that the unknown is a fascination for us, but it doesn't mean you get to make things up about it.
There are things we don't know, and just about everyone has heard the religio-speak to try to describe it. It's fascinating to people who like human psychology and sociology, but it hardly answers any questions.
As if Meta has discovered the truth after a million years of people making things up... Meta, THEY WERE MAKING IT UP!! You are trying to graph it and take it seriously! You are trying to say, "sure they believed gods created lighning, but what are the unlying themes? Those are the truths of our existence!"
No, they are the underlying themes YOU make up.
You're like a music critic listening to "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and thinking you need to analyze every word and syllable. Then, when John says, "no, it was about Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" you say, "oh, you just don't have the education I have! You don't know what you are talking about! It's so subconscious, it's Supernature!"
Give it up. What you are doing is stupid.
That's his highly intellectual answer to the summary of three studies. I knew they would do this. I knew as soon as I put up any kind fo study they would mock and ridicule it with no serious attempted to undersatnd it. Look at how stupidly he calims he did a study on a par wtih this guy Ralph Hood who has published 118 studies and is the major researcher in his field!
The dumb ass thinks they are on a par because they were both surveys. That's like me saying "I've done some math on a par with Hawking." He talks about imaginary number doesn't he? that's the kind I use on all my math tests.
The link above that he uses as his big test of Hood's veracity is a "rat your teacher" page on the net where sophomores talk about "I like him becuase he's nice." That's supposed to prove he's no good?
check out Hood's Vita
This is typical of what I knew they would do. As soon as I put up a summary they start the mocking and ridiculing without even seriously considering the material. That's exactly what they did with the Lourdes evdience. When I supplied it it wasn't' good enough. It never is.
this just underscores how atheism is morally and philosophically bankrupt, as a movement it's degenerating into brown shirt tactics.
Tonight I watched a thing about the cultural revolution in china. It interviewed former Red Guards who said that they beat people so much they got addicted to it and couldn't stop. It made them feel important and special and good about themselves to beat people. that's just what's going on with theses atheists. it makes them feel special to mock and ridicule Christians.