Best of AW

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Atheists show their true research ability


 This is from a series I'm doing on disproving the big block of BS that Royce uses against the M scale and my 200 studies. After regaling them with all this material which they could not answer, they began saying things like "you digging it deeper." be sure and read all of this then look at their reactions to follow.



IV. Criticism 4

this is no 4 in the big blog of Royce's propaganda he runs against Hood and the M scale. It's disproved empirically. all you have to do is read the study. If you read the study you see they do not agree with Katz but with Hood.

Francis Vincet Anthony, Carl Sterkins, Chris AM Hermans.

A comparative Study of Mystical Experience Among Christian, Muslim, and Hindu Students,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79669550/A...mil-Nadu-India

"Our findings also point to the limitations of Hood’s Mysticism Scale (already foreseen by him) when it comes to comparing totally heterogeneous religions such as Semitic and Eastern religions (Hinduism and Buddhism). Finally, we think that the major theoretical problem with regard to mysticism still stands: Is there a core structure of mystical experience or does it imply diversity? In order to answer this fundamental question, we need more comparative research among members of different religions in different geographical contexts."
From page 107:

This statement is far from saying that the M scale is bad or that it doesn't' work. These guys do not think they have disproved the M scale, they think they have improved it.

[ (1) they are merely denying the common core--Hood proves otherwise. they also admit Hood is aware of the criticism.

(2) their position is not necessarily opposed to mystical experience]

"Hood developed a Mysticism Scale based on the theoretical work of Stace. The scale was tested by Hood and others in a comparative perspective. Using an abridged version of Hood’s Mysticism Scale, we join the debatewith a study of a much larger number of Christian, Muslim, and Hindu respondents (1,920 college students)living in Tamil Nadu, India. Our empirical analysis yields a moderately reliable model of mystical experience that permits comparison between the three religious traditions. We argue for the usefulness of a comparative model of vertical mysticism that combines with the complementary common characteristics of noetic quality and ineffability. Vertical mysticism has a revelatory, ineffable character and is comparable in the experience of adherents of the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu traditions."

(3) They use an abridged version

"Using an abridged version of Hood’s Mysticism Scale, we join the debate with a study of a much larger number of Christian, Muslim, and Hindu respondents (1,920 college students)living in Tamil Nadu, India. Our empirical analysis yields a moderately reliable model of mystical experience that permits comparison between the three religious traditions. We argue for the usefulness of a comparative model of vertical mysticism that combines with the complementary common characteristics of noetic quality and ineffability. Vertical mysticism has a revelatory, ineffable character and is comparable in the experience of adherents of the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu traditions."

they point out Hood's scale is proved empirically:

"The measurement instrument is based on Hood’s Mysticism Scale.This scale has been proven empirically to be acceptable in diverse cultural contexts and religious traditions (Hill and Hood1999; Holm 1982; Hood 1975; Hood et al. 2001)."

(4) they claim they better results with a bigger sample but not that M scale doesn't work

"We argue for the usefulness of a comparative model of vertical mysticism that combines with the complementary common characteristics of noetic qualityand ineffability. Vertical mysticism has a revelatory, ineffable character and is comparable in the experience of adherents of the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu tradition"

[that's essentially admitting that the M scale is useful]

(5) not only is their view not anti-M scale it's pro mystical and they have quibbles with the particulars of Stace and Hood from within the realm of msytical fandom.

"In our view this state of unity belongs to the realm of mystical consciousness and not so much to that of interpretation. Empirical research supports the claim that mystical consciousness and its interpretation can be relatively independent (cf. Hood and Williamson 2000)" note on that quote the use Hood to support their finding"

(6) their own instrument study is based upon the M scale and they say the M scale is proved to be acceptable:

"The measurement instrument is based on Hood’s Mysticism Scale.This scale has been proven empirically to be acceptable in diverse cultural contexts and religious traditions (Hill and Hood1999; Holm 1982; Hood 1975; Hood et al. 2001)."

then it lists other studies that come to that conclusion.

(7) The above statement was put over as "a devastating" criticism of the M scale but is actually in favor of it. The person quoting didn't know what he is reading.

The quote says two major things: (a) the major problem of mysticism is the core structure, the common thesis is what they mean. (b) "Limitations" they say with the M scale, not that it's totally wrong but that it's limited. in what? in "when it comes to comparing totally heterogeneous religions such as Semitic and Eastern religions (Hinduism and Buddhism)." In other words it limited in comparing two totally different kinds of cultures in two different languages with different religions. Gee really? Limited hu? The common core is a major issue. This would be like saying "weather or not god exists is still a major questoin." That's like saying a criticism of Hawking's work on time is that it doesn't solve the riddle of why we exist. This is big stuff, how much can we expet one study to do.



Hood has proved the common core thesis with empirical research. when they take the names out and the doctrines out and just look at the descriptions of the experience, they are the same. that is a common core. Hood documents this in his artilce that is in the McNamara book:

Ralph Hood Jr. “The Common Core Thesis in the Study of Mysticism.” In Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion. Patrick Mcnamara ed. West Port CT: Prager Publications, 2006, 119-235.

Google books on line version: URL http://books.google.com.cu/books?id=...epage&q&f=true visited 8/20/2012


I've put these studies up time and time again, no one every read them or looked at them:

The M scale developed by Hood has been validated by many studies in cross cultural context, while Greely’s Gallop Poll questions have been used both cross culturally and longitudinally.

The two major exceptions to the lack of shared instrumentation are the mysticism scale by Hood (1975) which has been used in quite a number of studies by Hood and others, and the repeated use of certain questions in survey research by Greeley and the Gallop Organization over a sixteen year period.

Holm (1982) “mysticism and intense experiences” demonstrates another level of cross-cultural validation.

Method: The author translated into Swedish several Hood scales designed to measure mystical experiences. The items describing religious experiences drawn from William James, on Hood’s (1970) Religious Episode Experience Measure (REEM) with narratives taken from Nordic anthologies. Eighteen teachers of religion and psychology each administered the scales to 6-9 persons.

Findings: The study replicated most of Hood’s findings with the same instruments. “The results of our empirical study of mysticism in a Finnish-Swedish environment largely coincide with Hood’s results in an American environment…The cross-cultural testing that some of Hood’s methods have received as a result of our research on another continuant and in another linguistic area means that the results have received a wider range of applications.


Holm (1982) presented a Swedish M scale administered to 122 Swedish “informants.” Factor I correlated best to non Christian profiles, while factor II worked best with those who had Christian assumptions. Holm accounts for a general mysticism factor and general religious factor. This parallels earlier research in Sweden (Solderblom—see Holm 82, 275-76) .
The M scale has been validated with Iranian Muslims.
In a mostly Christian American sample (N = 1,379), confirmatory factor analysis of Hood's (1975) Mysticism Scale verified the existence of Stace's (1960) introvertive and extrovertive dimensions of mystical phenomenology along with a separate interpretation factor. A second study confirmed the presence of these three factors in not only another group of Americans (N = 188), but also a sample of Iranian Muslims (N = 185). Relationships of the introvertive and extrovertive factors with the interpretation factor were essentially identical across these two cultures, but the Americans displayed a stronger association between the two phenomenology factors. In both samples, the interpretation factor correlated positively with an intrinsic and negatively with an extrinsic religious orientation, and the introvertive factor predicted psychological dysfunction. Associations of the interpretation factor with relative mental health appeared only in the Iranians. These data offered general support for Stace's phenomenology of mysticism, although the ineffability he linked with interpretation proved to be as much or even more a feature of the introvertive experience, as hypothesized by Hood.

The M Scale in Relation to other measurement scores.


The over all result demonstrates the superiority of Hood’s model (and Stace’s categories) over other models. “Thus empirically there is strong support to claim that as opporationalized from Stace’s criteria mystical experience is identical as measured across diverse samples, whether expressed in “neutral language” or with either “God” or “Christ” references.” M Scale has been correlated to scores on standardized personality measures in two studies. In 1985 Hood found that the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) “did not correlate with the M Scale. Different correlations of factors between factors I and II were compatible with non pathological interpretations of mysticism.” The score for the MMPI applies to people who are apt to lie or present themselves in a favorable light to their own advantage. But Hood argues that high scores on factor II (religious) may be due to the fact that traditional religious people are less likely to engage in deviant behavior. Thus the score doesn’t apply to them.
Spanos and Moretti (1988) directly correlated M scale scores with Tellegen and Atkinson absorption scale.


Ibid, 324
Ralph Hood Jr., W.P. Williamson. “An empirical test of the unity thesis: The structure of mystical descriptors in various faith samples.” Journal of Christianity and Psychology, 19, (2000) 222-244.
R.W. Hood, Jr., N.Ghorbani, P.J. Waston, et al “Dimensions of the Mysticism Scale: Confirming the Three Factor Structure in the United States and Iran.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40 (2001) 691-705.
R.K.C. Forman, Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness. Albany: State University of New York Press, (1999) 20-30.
F.S. Brainard, Reality and Mystical Experience, Unvisited Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. (2000). See also D.Loy, Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy. Amherst, New York: Humanities Press.
David Lukoff and Francis G. Lu. “Transpersonal Psychology Research Review Topic: Mystical Experience.” The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, vol. 20, no.2 (1988) 161
Ibid.
Spilka et al, 326
Dimensions of the Mysticism Scale: Confirming the Three-Factor Structure in the United States and Iran. Hood, Ralph W. Jr., Ghorbani, Nima, Watson, P.J., Ghramaleki, Ahad Framarz, Bing, Mark N., Davison, H. Kristl, Morris, Ronald J., and Williamson, W. Paul. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:4 (2001) 691-705
Spilka and Hood, 324.


Anthony does not say that M scale fails to sort out a true mystical experience form a false one. that's the only thing my arguments claim about it.




 Atheist Reactions


 sinaftersin:

 Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
I'm going to add this study to the 200. Now I have 201.

sinafter sin says:
'the "200" number is made up anyways. whooopeeee.'

I counted them. why is it  made up? He's never bothered to look at the big which I've linked to time and time again. It is a conservative ball park figure.


Radiology:

 Meta, you continually ignore criticism of your point of view, and chug on as if the criticism wasn't even made. You make unsupported claims, and use references that in NO WAY support your claims, and continue to pretend that they do. You refuse to show your sources. You backpedal in the worst way.

You have zero standing whatsoever to accuse anyone of academic dishonesty - EVER.


 Unsupported claims. I have the studies. I looked up all the studies sin his block then research the stuff again them. Look at how many studies I have down there and he says "unsupported." I did the research for the 200 studies. Unsupported!


 on the same thread:

Teabagsalad
 Hey Meta,

D'ya wanna borrow that shovel again?
 another guy put me on ignore.


 Originally Posted by maybrick View Post
I don't even need to read the thread you are talking about to know you have this backwards.


Don't confuse me with the facts. I don't need to read the material my mind is made up.


so I'm so totally dishonest becuase I have this huge body empirical studies that they refuse to read, but they know they are so bad.

my views are so flimsy becuase they unsupported. that means Royce doesn't' accept them. forge the 200 studies in academic journals they are no good becuase Royce says so.






No comments: