IDiots can't do ANY kind of science right

Yesterday, PZ Meyers , and a slough of other "pro-science" bloggers received this "survey" from an IDiot at Telic Thoughts:

For the purpose of this survey, "creationism" will be defined as "a belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible" (source: Dictionary.com). "Evolution" will be defined as "the theory that all modern life forms are derived from one or a few common ancestors via descent with modification".

Please answer the following:

On which points are intelligent design and creationism identical?

A. Both creationism and intelligent design require one to have a particular interpretation of the Biblical creation account.
B. Both creationism and intelligent design require one to accept a particular age of the Earth and of the universe.
C. Both creationism and intelligent design require one to reject evolution.
D. Both creationism and intelligent design identify the Christian God as the creator.
E. Both creationism and intelligent design hold that there is an intelligence behind certain features of nature.
F. There are no points of similarity between creationism and intelligent design.
G. None of the above options accurately describe the relationship between creationism and intelligent design.
(Please check all that apply.)

Krauze (the author of this survey) say's that s/he (dunno it's gender, don't care) is trying to gather "sociological data" about what "defenders of evolution" (the rest of us call them scientists) "preception about ID. Well, Krauze may be thinking s/he's collecting sociological data, but s/he certainly doesn't know the first thing about doing so, and as a, you know, real sociologist, I'm a bit fussy.

Let's take a look at the "survey" itself. First, only two of the significant terms are defined (Creationism and Evolution). What's "Intelligent Design" for the purposes of this survey? No definition. How are respondents supposed to compare these things when they don't have full definitions of what they're comparing. So, right at the start we've got a problem. This question provides no insight into how "pro-science" bloggers actually understand ID because we don't know what ID is. If we want to get to the heart of the matter, we want to write questions that define the terms we're using so that we actually, ya know, measure what we think we're measuring (that's what we call validity). In this case, because ID is left undefined, we have no insight into what the respondents think it is, and that provides us no insight into what they think the relationship between ID and Creationism is. The "survey" Krauze has created is worthless for gaining any kind of sociological knowledge.
First, one question does not a survey make. When we construct surveys, even those trying to answer one question (like, "What are 'pro-science bloggers' perceptions of ID") we generally create a number of questions. Part of this is because we attempt to minimize the number of things going on in each question. This is for two reasons. First, we don't want to confuse our respondents. Second, we want to make sure there aren't confounding relationships within the question itself. If you've got a question that's too complex, that contains too many parts, you really have no idea what's going on, which part of the question the respondent is actually referring to. So, you minimize that by including a number of questions, each providing one bit of information. You don't cram everything into one question. You might include the same questions (worded differently) at different places in the survey to check the consistency of answers. If the same question, worded differently, produces widely varying results, you're probably going to have to throw it out, or figure out what it is that produces those differences. There's no internal check here. It's one complex question (we also, generally, try to make the answers to any of our survey items exclusive and exhaustive, which is certainly not happening here.)

The question itself is problematic. It's not trying to ask, "What are pro-science bloggers' perceptions of ID?" Instead, it's asking, "How do pro-science bloggers view the relationship between ID and creationism?" Different question. The second question may be part of the first, but our "researcher" doesn't have the survey construction skill, indeed the analytical skill, to see what's going on. Krauze has provided almost no way to get at the question s/he says they are. The question looks at one part of that broader question, and is constructed in such a way as to provide no useful information. I take that back, partially. It's constructed in such a way as to provide no useful scientific information. That should be obvious from the post's title: "Activism and the problem with blog polls." Krauze is trying to gather political information, not sociological data. It's an activist, not a scientist (social or biological).

And that's what frustrates me so much, as a sociologist, with the fool's effort. S/he goes on to say that the responses of the pro-science bloggers would make useful sociological data. They might. But only in the hands of people who actually know what they're doing. I've got to ask Krauze, what techniques will you use to analyze this data? How are you going to systematize the analysis? What's the research question? More likely, it'll be used as an opportunity for some quote mining.

So, Krauze, you're already trying to fuck up biology. Stay the hell away from sociology. It's clear that you have no idea what you're doing. You're an ignorant hack in both fields.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | |