I thought science already had proved evolution, a theory that has no need for and has no evidence of the involvement of God the creator - designer of the world and mankind.
I think that abiogenesis is the theory that deals with creation, rather than evolution.
What makes me laugh about this is that the people doing this study probably didn't go round asking every 5-6 year old child and thought they would just make the assumption that all of the children are like the way they have stated then make something up and call it a 'study'.
Exactly. It's a load of nonsense. It's all a bit laughable.
Was there a significant difference between White, African American and Asian American children?
And what is the difference between a public school and a parochial one?
The clue to all of this is in the third line of the OP's first paragraph.
It may well be that children will think such things are not impossible. Others will think they are impossible. But on what grounds? Not scientific grounds I assure you.
The question of whether there is a supernatural cannot be answered by science. It is a metaphysical one, and the weight of that debate in my view is very much in favour of there being a God. To argue the contrary is of course possible, but in my view ultimately self defeating.
It may well be that children will think such things are not impossible. Others will think they are impossible. But on what grounds? Not scientific grounds I assure you.
The study suggests that one explanation is that children are disposed to credulity unless otherwise taught by their family.
The sooner science can prove the method we were created and prove religion is fictional the happier this world will be! Prove to the martyrs there is no paradise ! With no religion the world will be happier
You mean like the aetheistic states such as the former USSR and the existing North Korea? They really were/are great places to live!!!
The study suggests that one explanation is that children are disposed to credulity unless otherwise taught by their family.
That is exactly my point. On what grounds do their family tell them that? It is assuredly not scientific grounds. Science has no hope at all of telling us whether the supernatural is possible.
Yes, children with religious exposure were not found to be unable to tell fact from fiction.
They tended to judge fictional characters to be real. They determined that " religious teaching, especially miracle stories, leads children to a more generic receptivity toward the impossible, that is, a more wide-ranging acceptance that the impossible can happen in defiance of ordinary causal relations."
Well, duh!
And obviously being receptive is not the same as being unable to distinguish fact from fiction.
You mean like the aetheistic states such as the former USSR and the existing North Korea? They really were/are great places to live!!!
I am making no excuses for these countries, (by the way it is spelt atheistic), you think the non-belief in these countries leads to their quality of life? How about looking at the politics, authoritarian regimes? Lets not pretend that the christian countries are anything special - the middle east (where this cult originated) is full of violence, abuse, murder, misogyny homophobia, prejudice, etc - when you read the so-called "holy" bible, you can see where they get their actions from .......
You understand that Cognitive Science is a multidisplinary journal and the that the authors are from Education and Social Science.
What science are you drawing on ?
You understand that Cognitive Science is a multidisplinary journal and the that the authors are from Education and Social Science.
What science are you drawing on ?
I think you will find they are from disciplines including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, and anthropology. I make no claims about drawing from science. I have simply shared the study (well the abstract and blog link until I access the full study)
So you are going with the blog rather than reading the study.
Is this because the blog meets your preconceptions?
I am going with the blog as it has had access to the full study, where as I have not. To be honest, I don't need the blog (or the study) to know about my preconceptions being true. Nice to have evidence to back it up though!
The study only looked at whether children at 5 or 6 thought the protagonist could be real. That doesn't mean they can't distinguish fact from fiction. No such global conclusion can be drawn.
I am going with the blog as it has had access to the full study, where as I have not. To be honest, I don't need the blog (or the study) to know about my preconceptions being true. Nice to have evidence to back it up though!
What evidence?
You decided the blog was a 'true and fair' reflection of the journal, but you didn't test that.
What other journals have the authors published? How often are they cited? What journals etc are they cited in?
I think you will find they are from disciplines including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, and anthropology. I make no claims about drawing from science. I have simply shared the study (well the abstract and blog link until I access the full study)
So why did you frame the question to bollywood as are you a scientist? Why didn't you frame it along the ones in your first sentence?
Comments
It's more mind numbing of the persons who designed that study to be seemingly unaware of the normative stages of child development, per Piaget.
The father did the right thing by participating with his child and enriching imagination.
If you say so.
I think that abiogenesis is the theory that deals with creation, rather than evolution.
Exactly. It's a load of nonsense. It's all a bit laughable.
Thanks for your in-depth scientific rebuttal.
And what is the difference between a public school and a parochial one?
Have you read the full study? Being aware of the stages of development I wouldn't conduct this study.
In addition you changed the wording of the results, to make it different from what was actually concluded.
It may well be that children will think such things are not impossible. Others will think they are impossible. But on what grounds? Not scientific grounds I assure you.
The question of whether there is a supernatural cannot be answered by science. It is a metaphysical one, and the weight of that debate in my view is very much in favour of there being a God. To argue the contrary is of course possible, but in my view ultimately self defeating.
If true, that doesn't surprise me one bit.
You mean like the aetheistic states such as the former USSR and the existing North Korea? They really were/are great places to live!!!
That is exactly my point. On what grounds do their family tell them that? It is assuredly not scientific grounds. Science has no hope at all of telling us whether the supernatural is possible.
Yes, children with religious exposure were not found to be unable to tell fact from fiction.
They tended to judge fictional characters to be real. They determined that " religious teaching, especially miracle stories, leads children to a more generic receptivity toward the impossible, that is, a more wide-ranging acceptance that the impossible can happen in defiance of ordinary causal relations."
Well, duh!
And obviously being receptive is not the same as being unable to distinguish fact from fiction.
Have I?
I am making no excuses for these countries, (by the way it is spelt atheistic), you think the non-belief in these countries leads to their quality of life? How about looking at the politics, authoritarian regimes? Lets not pretend that the christian countries are anything special - the middle east (where this cult originated) is full of violence, abuse, murder, misogyny homophobia, prejudice, etc - when you read the so-called "holy" bible, you can see where they get their actions from .......
What science are you drawing on ?
Is this because the blog meets your preconceptions?
The study only looked at whether children at 5 or 6 thought the protagonist could be real. That doesn't mean they can't distinguish fact from fiction. No such global conclusion can be drawn.
North Korea is not "aetheistic"
You decided the blog was a 'true and fair' reflection of the journal, but you didn't test that.
What other journals have the authors published? How often are they cited? What journals etc are they cited in?