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?
Google will answer that for you. In the mean time, here is the full study - fill your boots.
What? I didn't claim to be a scientist at all. Lets not make it up as we go along, hey?
Where do I say you claimed that?
In post #65 you asked if bollywood is a scientist. Why did you ask that about a journal written by educationalists and a social scientist?
Where do I say you claimed that?
In post #65 you asked if bollywood is a scientist. Why did you ask that about a journal written by educationalists and a social scientist?
So by asking someone if they are a scientist, I am saying that I am one. Lol. Come on, have a word with yourself.
You know the full qualifications of the researchers? Feel free to share.
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!
So by asking someone if they are a scientist, I am saying that I am one. Lol. Come on, have a word with yourself.
You know the full qualifications of the researchers? Feel free to share.
No where do I state or suggest you are a scientist. I have asked why you framed a question as though the authors are.
I only know of the authors credentials in the paper - the one you said you hadn't read.
Google will answer that for you. In the mean time, here is the full study - fill your boots.
Thanks for the link.
I have read study 1 it has an obvious major flaw
As the study states all children of that age are likely to believe fantastical things if an adult tells them it is true. The study refers to previous studies one with a magic box, one with a potion that makes you younger, one with an invisble person that have demonstrated this baisic point.
The major flaw is that the fantastical stories are all well known Biblical tales where God's aid has been replaced by magic. No account has been made of if the children have been told the tale before by an adult. The children had to justify why they thought a story was real or fantastical and what caused the difference in results was children attributing the magic in some of the fantastical stories to God's divine intervention. The major flaw is obviously that the children may well have been told the story before by an adult, and all children that age are likely to believe the fantastical if told it is real by an adult. The children may not be more prone to believe the fantasical they may just know the story is true because an adult has previously told them.
A second less major flaw is that the children despite each being tested in isolation of one another were not each told the same stories, different children were told different stories. Some of the fantastical stories may have been inherently more credible or less credible to children their age.
Study 2 looks to have attempted to remove the flaw of using well known bilblical stories by using well known biblical stories and changing a few more elements like a character's name, or chaning the sea into mountains, but the stories are still easily recognizable. The study is of fewer children study I used 66 children, study 2 uses 33.
Google will answer that for you. In the mean time, here is the full study - fill your boots.
Thank you for posting the link.
What stands out to me is that the children who determined that the protagonists were pretend may have had a precocious ability for skepticism that I expect could have been learned from their non-religious parents. You can practically hear the parental voices in there.
Whether this early skepticism is desirable or not is a matter of opinion. The magical thinking stage is related to fertile imagination.
Regardless, the study does not demonstrate whether religious children are more apt to believe the impossible in everyday life situations.
In addition we find the impossible possible. There might not be invisible sails but there are invisibility cloaks.
Someone would have to do a longitudinal study to determine whether the skeptic children or the believer children fared better.
I do not recall a time when I believed in a 6 day creation etc.
I never did believe that one. Some of the others, usually the ones involving Jesus, I was a bit more inclined to believe when I first learned of them. I can't recall when exactly I changed my mind about them, but something must have happened to make me do so and long before I hit my teens.
What stands out to me is that the children who determined that the protagonists were pretend may have had a precocious ability for skepticism that I expect could have been learned from their non-religious parents. You can practically hear the parental voices in there..
In the real vs fantasy familar characters test I think the most religious children scored highest at correctly identifying real people vs fictional characters. It was a test done with pictures of familar characters. Not the later test with stories.
In study 1 part 1 Familiar characters: the experimenter presented children with pictures of Goldilocks and Thomas Edison. Children were told a short narrative about the characters if they said they did not know who they were. Children were then invited to place each picture in one of the two boxes. Next, the experimenter presented children with additional historical and fictional figures drawn from a set of 18 pictures: nine historical figures and nine fictional figures. Previous testing had established that many of these figures were known to kindergarteners. The experimenter presented pictures individually and asked, “Have you heard of _____?” Only pictures with which the child claimed to be familiar were presented for categorization.
In study I part 2 Story-based characters: Immediately following the last Familiar Characters trial, the religous children scored worst they identified fanatasical stories as real, fantastical stories that were well known Bibical stories told to children, but where God was replaced by magic, and in the explaination of why it was real the Children said because God did it. Why on earth did the experiment choose to use well known Biblical stories for the fantastical stories and not bother to ask the children if they had heard the story before.
In the real vs fantasy familar characters test I think the most religious children scored highest at correctly identifying real people vs fictional characters. It was a test done with pictures of familar characters. Not the later test with stories.
In study 1 part 1 Familiar characters: the experimenter presented children with pictures of Goldilocks and Thomas Edison. Children were told a short narrative about the characters if they said they did not know who they were. Children were then invited to place each picture in one of the two boxes. Next, the experimenter presented children with additional historical and fictional figures drawn from a set of 18 pictures: nine historical figures and nine fictional figures. Previous testing had established that many of these figures were known to kindergarteners. The experimenter presented pictures individually and asked, “Have you heard of _____?” Only pictures with which the child claimed to be familiar were presented for categorization.
In study I part 2 Story-based characters: Immediately following the last Familiar Characters trial, the religous children scored worst they identified fanatasical stories as real, fantastical stories that were well known Bibical stories told to children, but where God was replaced by magic, and in the explaination of why it was real the Children said because God did it. Why on earth did the experiment choose to use well known Biblical stories for the fantastical stories and not bother to ask the children if they had heard the story before.
I was referring to a part where some skeptic kid said you can't kill with a sword all the time. Okay a little critic. Probably came from skeptic parents watching shows with the kid.
My point is that these kids got their ideas from the parents (rather than genetically) that is probably the only point from the study that is useful, if it is even true. Which is not clear.
That had no bearing on how kids perform in later life though (my other point).
I'm thinking of someone who owned a large company and went through his life believing in guardian angels. Didn't seem to hurt him.
Interesting findings. It is disturbing to see that religion in this day and age have such a hold over mankind, school children especially.
I personally believe religion and prayer should be banned from schools. What purpose does it have in schools? This is not education. Surely, children should be learning critical thinking, to think for themselves on this issue, and not have these things foisted upon them 3 times a day, 5x a week for many years on end. If what the religious say is true, then there would be no need to brainwash young school children in what to believe.
Along with catching my parents in the middle of the night sneakily trying to slip a 50p *from* the tooth fairy under my pillow as a child, it was too having religion forced on myself by my primary school teachers is what made me come to the conclusion to the fact that magic, superstitious fairy tails, and god do not exist. It was the forced prayer, and punishment for not complying with what was required from their beliefs which I really did not understand, and what really made me question religion in it's entirety. I was on many occasions by school teachers yelled at, had my hands forced put together, intimidated, berated, threatened in having to stay behind after school, and even denied lunch for not willingly participating in prayer. My school would even take trips to the local church, and we would have daily morning services with having to sing religious hymns such as 'He's got the whole world in his hands' and listen to those silly bible stories. (UGH! that song still gives me creeps.) While most other young children gullibly believed what these trusted adults regularly told them, fortuately for me, I did not.
Anyway, One girl in particular from my primary school classes/ secondry school sticks out to me upon reading this. This girl actually belived in santa until she was 12! I currently have her on Facebook, and noticed she is a VERY devout member of some church.
I personally believe religion and prayer should be banned from schools. What purpose does it have in schools?
None whatsoever except explaining how religion held back humanity for many hundred of years (still does in a few parts of the world and if some religious groups get their way, we'll be heading back there) until science was allowed to flourish in the Age of Reason and humanity could progress using knowledge, the development of technology and mechanics as well as the scientific method. Schools and the state should be secular with no involvement of religion whatsoever.
We cannot stop people having a belief in a religion, as European and International human rights protocols give the right to religion and belief, but we can and should challenge any claim in any holy text anything which does not hold up to reality and scrutiny and not teach such things in any school.
I agree with the study totally. If you brainwash your kids into believing religion, then of course they are going to be more susceptible in believing in other fantasy shit too. It's not rocket science.
None whatsoever except explaining how religion held back humanity for many hundred of years (still does in a few parts of the world and if some religious groups get their way, we'll be heading back there) until science was allowed to flourish in the Age of Reason and humanity could progress using knowledge, the development of technology and mechanics as well as the scientific method. Schools and the state should be secular with no involvement of religion whatsoever..
Yeah religion has always held back humanity and scientific progress by doing such things as founding Universities and funding scientific endevour, while historically most scientists were believers. If only there had been no Universities, far less funding of scientific endevour and far fewer scientists, humanity would have progressed so much faster.
Then there is religion founding and running education including education for the poor. If only far fewerer people had been taught to read and write and mathmatics, etc; human progress could have been so much faster.
If people think that children are 'born believers' then this study does indicate that such a view is not supported by the evidence. From that point of view I think it has value because there are groups who believe this to be true. It doesn't say anything about any in-born capacity for belief of course.
I don't have a problem with children being raised in a religion (by their families.. not by religion in schools) - what I have a problem with is being taught that they are superior to others; that it justifies the oppression of others; that critical thinking isn't important etc.
Comments
Google will answer that for you. In the mean time, here is the full study - fill your boots.
What? I didn't claim to be a scientist at all. Lets not make it up as we go along, hey?
Their 'glorious leader' is their God.
And the fat, repulsive, murdering little bastard actually exists. >:(
In post #65 you asked if bollywood is a scientist. Why did you ask that about a journal written by educationalists and a social scientist?
You know the full qualifications of the researchers? Feel free to share.
So you want particular answers and I have to do the foot work, I think not.
What evidence is it that you have?
I only know of the authors credentials in the paper - the one you said you hadn't read.
Ok so now the full journal article is available, do you know the full credentials?
I have read study 1 it has an obvious major flaw
As the study states all children of that age are likely to believe fantastical things if an adult tells them it is true. The study refers to previous studies one with a magic box, one with a potion that makes you younger, one with an invisble person that have demonstrated this baisic point.
The major flaw is that the fantastical stories are all well known Biblical tales where God's aid has been replaced by magic. No account has been made of if the children have been told the tale before by an adult. The children had to justify why they thought a story was real or fantastical and what caused the difference in results was children attributing the magic in some of the fantastical stories to God's divine intervention. The major flaw is obviously that the children may well have been told the story before by an adult, and all children that age are likely to believe the fantastical if told it is real by an adult. The children may not be more prone to believe the fantasical they may just know the story is true because an adult has previously told them.
A second less major flaw is that the children despite each being tested in isolation of one another were not each told the same stories, different children were told different stories. Some of the fantastical stories may have been inherently more credible or less credible to children their age.
Study 2 looks to have attempted to remove the flaw of using well known bilblical stories by using well known biblical stories and changing a few more elements like a character's name, or chaning the sea into mountains, but the stories are still easily recognizable. The study is of fewer children study I used 66 children, study 2 uses 33.
Batshit crazy.
However, I do know that some people do believe in a 6 day creation and I respect their right to have such opinions.
I am guessing that some people would like to make Sunday schools illegal. >:(
You are trying to tell people what to think though. Don't make me laugh. Fundamental Aethists are ad as extreme as religious zealots
Thank you for posting the link.
What stands out to me is that the children who determined that the protagonists were pretend may have had a precocious ability for skepticism that I expect could have been learned from their non-religious parents. You can practically hear the parental voices in there.
Whether this early skepticism is desirable or not is a matter of opinion. The magical thinking stage is related to fertile imagination.
Regardless, the study does not demonstrate whether religious children are more apt to believe the impossible in everyday life situations.
In addition we find the impossible possible. There might not be invisible sails but there are invisibility cloaks.
Someone would have to do a longitudinal study to determine whether the skeptic children or the believer children fared better.
I never did believe that one. Some of the others, usually the ones involving Jesus, I was a bit more inclined to believe when I first learned of them. I can't recall when exactly I changed my mind about them, but something must have happened to make me do so and long before I hit my teens.
I know that some people want to keep religiously neutral day schools illegal.
In study 1 part 1 Familiar characters: the experimenter presented children with pictures of Goldilocks and Thomas Edison. Children were told a short narrative about the characters if they said they did not know who they were. Children were then invited to place each picture in one of the two boxes. Next, the experimenter presented children with additional historical and fictional figures drawn from a set of 18 pictures: nine historical figures and nine fictional figures. Previous testing had established that many of these figures were known to kindergarteners. The experimenter presented pictures individually and asked, “Have you heard of _____?” Only pictures with which the child claimed to be familiar were presented for categorization.
In study I part 2 Story-based characters: Immediately following the last Familiar Characters trial, the religous children scored worst they identified fanatasical stories as real, fantastical stories that were well known Bibical stories told to children, but where God was replaced by magic, and in the explaination of why it was real the Children said because God did it. Why on earth did the experiment choose to use well known Biblical stories for the fantastical stories and not bother to ask the children if they had heard the story before.
Not me. I like the law as it is.
I was referring to a part where some skeptic kid said you can't kill with a sword all the time. Okay a little critic. Probably came from skeptic parents watching shows with the kid.
My point is that these kids got their ideas from the parents (rather than genetically) that is probably the only point from the study that is useful, if it is even true. Which is not clear.
That had no bearing on how kids perform in later life though (my other point).
I'm thinking of someone who owned a large company and went through his life believing in guardian angels. Didn't seem to hurt him.
I personally believe religion and prayer should be banned from schools. What purpose does it have in schools? This is not education. Surely, children should be learning critical thinking, to think for themselves on this issue, and not have these things foisted upon them 3 times a day, 5x a week for many years on end. If what the religious say is true, then there would be no need to brainwash young school children in what to believe.
Along with catching my parents in the middle of the night sneakily trying to slip a 50p *from* the tooth fairy under my pillow as a child, it was too having religion forced on myself by my primary school teachers is what made me come to the conclusion to the fact that magic, superstitious fairy tails, and god do not exist. It was the forced prayer, and punishment for not complying with what was required from their beliefs which I really did not understand, and what really made me question religion in it's entirety. I was on many occasions by school teachers yelled at, had my hands forced put together, intimidated, berated, threatened in having to stay behind after school, and even denied lunch for not willingly participating in prayer. My school would even take trips to the local church, and we would have daily morning services with having to sing religious hymns such as 'He's got the whole world in his hands' and listen to those silly bible stories. (UGH! that song still gives me creeps.) While most other young children gullibly believed what these trusted adults regularly told them, fortuately for me, I did not.
Anyway, One girl in particular from my primary school classes/ secondry school sticks out to me upon reading this. This girl actually belived in santa until she was 12! I currently have her on Facebook, and noticed she is a VERY devout member of some church.
We cannot stop people having a belief in a religion, as European and International human rights protocols give the right to religion and belief, but we can and should challenge any claim in any holy text anything which does not hold up to reality and scrutiny and not teach such things in any school.
Then there is religion founding and running education including education for the poor. If only far fewerer people had been taught to read and write and mathmatics, etc; human progress could have been so much faster.
I don't have a problem with children being raised in a religion (by their families.. not by religion in schools) - what I have a problem with is being taught that they are superior to others; that it justifies the oppression of others; that critical thinking isn't important etc.