ريتشارد دوكنز's Blog, page 658
October 22, 2015
As You Likert
Do you know those questionnaires where you are presented with a statement and asked whether you (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) neither agree nor disagree, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree? The responses themselves are supposed to be symmetrical and balanced around the neutral position (whether or not it is included). In the trade, these statements together with the ranges are called Likert items, and the sum of the responses is called a Likert scale, after the psychologist Rensis Likert (1903–1946)—which is pronounced LICK-ert, not LIKE-ert, making a mockery of the Shakespearian title here. (I also considered “Some Likert Hot.”) Likert is credited with developing the apparatus on the strength of his paper “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes,” published in Archives of Psychology in 1932. And yet, as I recently discovered to my surprise, a couple of sociologists were using such a questionnaire in 1923—and doing so in order to give a hard time to a leading creationist.
In 1923, Stuart A. Rice (1889–1969) and Malcolm M. Willey (1897–1974) were both young instructors in sociology at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, both having recently received their doctoral degrees at Columbia University. When they learned that William Jennings Bryan (above) was coming to their college to give a talk on “Science vs. Evolution,” they thought that it would be interesting to ascertain what the effect, if any, would be on the students—especially because, as they wrote in the January 13, 1924, issue of The New York Times, “Dartmouth is one college in the country where every undergraduate is required to take a course in evolution and where a department of evolution has a place of equal importance with the departments devoted to the classics, the social sciences[,] and the rest.” They prepared a questionnaire to administer to 136 sociology students, all of whom had taken the required course in evolution in their first year at the college. The sole question was a Likert item avant la lettre.
With reference to the doctrine that man evolved from lower animal forms, in harmony with general principles of organic evolution:
I reject the doctrine completely.
While I do not reject it completely, I do not believe that the evidence favors it.
I am undecided whether to accept or reject it.
While I do not accept it completely, I believe that the evidence favors it.
I accept the doctrine completely.
Rice and Willey administered the questionnaire to the students twice, before Bryan spoke and again after Bryan spoke. Two “significant facts” were thereby revealed, they wrote in the Times: that “an overwhelming number of these undergraduates were believers in the doctrine of organic evolution” and that “these beliefs were substantially unchanged as a result of Mr. Bryan’s address,” although they acknowledged that insofar as there was change, it was away from acceptance of evolution:
Before hearing Bryan
After hearing Bryan
Net change
I accept the doctrine completely.
70
60
-10
I believe that the evidence favors it.
52
48
-4
I am undecided whether to accept or reject it.
7
14
+7
I do not believe that the evidence favors it.
5
10
+5
I reject the doctrine completely.
2
4
+2
Understandably, Rice and Willey didn’t inflict a detailed statistical analysis of their data on the readers of the Times, instead devoting a considerable amount of space to the comments submitted with the questionnaire. “A skillful, masterly oration,” opined a representative student, “given by a prejudiced man, who did not have, or did not show that he has, a knowledge of what he was talking about. Such an argument would only convince the uneducated.”
But when Willey and Rice (reversing the order of authorship) published their paper “William Jennings Bryan as a Social Force” in the Journal of Social Forces in the same year, there wasn’t any detailed statistical analysis to speak of there, either—which is surprising, considering that Rice was a future mover and shaker in the world of statistics, serving as president of the American Statistical Association in 1933. But they provided further data, including data from a group of first-year students who hadn’t taken the evolution course yet but attended Bryan’s talk, unmentioned in the Times article. It isn’t surprising that Wiley and Rice observe, “Partly, it may be presumed, as a result of greater maturity, but in greater part due to their familiarity with the principles of evolution acquired in the compulsory course the percentage of students accepting the doctrine without qualifications was four times greater in the sample representing the upper classes than in the freshman group.”
The Mead Project, which seeks to revitalize research on work of the sociologist George Herbert Mead and collect documents related to his work, says of Willey and Rice’s paper, “This is the first example we have been able to identify of the ‘Likert-style’ response.” Probably part of the reason that Likert is remembered for it, however, is that he thought about it in general terms, carefully articulating the rationale for it in his work, thus helping scientists to apply and develop the method, while Rice and Willey apparently just plunged ahead with their questionnaire at Dartmouth College without reflecting on the underlying methodological issues. I sympathize, actually: I tinkered for a while trying to apply modern statistical tests to Willey and Rice’s data, but my statistical skills are (to put it mildly) rusty, and there were more pressing demands on the time of NCSE’s statistics maven Josh Rosenau. But if you’re not scared by two-tailed t tests, contingency table analysis, or analysis of variance, and have time to kill, drop me a line…
Are We Recycling Too Much Of Our Trash?
Photo credit:
Aluminum cans are among the most valuable items to recycle. ableman/flickr, CC BY-NC-ND
A recent credible study suggests the amount of waste Americans dispose in landfills each year is over twice what the EPA had been estimating.
Dead Star Demolishes Planet – Offering A Glimpse Into How The Earth Could End Its Days
Photo credit:
A disintergating asteroid caught in the gravitational pull of a white dwarf star: could this be the future fate of the Earth? Mark A. Garlick
Astronomers have made the first direct discovery of a white dwarf star being orbited by a disintegrating minor planet that will ultimately collide into it. The observation, made by the Kepler space telescope, offers a glimpse into what could happen to the Earth in a few billion years as the Sun, like most stars, becomes a white dwarf.
Modern Hunter-Gatherers Probably Get Less Sleep Than You Do
Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock.com
By Charles Q. Choi
Although it might seem that the glowing lights from smartphones and other trappings of modern life reduce people’s ability to get a decent amount of shut-eye, scientists now suggest that people do not get any less sleep today than they did in prehistoric times.
The researchers looked at people living in three hunter-gatherer societies in rural parts of Africa and South America. Investigations showed that these traditional peoples slept slightly less than 6.5 hours a night on average. In comparison, people in industrial societies usually average seven to eight hours per night.
“We find that contrary to much conventional wisdom, it is very likely that we do not sleep less than our distant ancestors,” said the study’s senior author, Jerome Siegel, a sleep researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.
However, the researchers also found that insomnia may have been more rare in ancient times than it is now. This finding suggests that looking to the past could lead to new ways of treating insomnia, which afflicts more than 20 percent of people in the United States at some point during their lives, the investigators added.
Read the full article by clicking the name of the source below.
October 21, 2015
Ancient Mega-Shark Unearthed In Texas
Photo credit:
A modern-day great white shark is dwarfed by the newly uncovered ancient shark. Sergey Uryadnikov/Shutterstock
Everything’s bigger in Texas, or so they say. This appears to extend to the ancient past too, as a new shark fossil has been found and it’s pretty huge. A mega-sized shark that swam around 300 million years ago was unearthed in what is modern-day Texas, and it’s way bigger than many sharks we see today. Earth’s largest shark, the Megalodon, could reach 18 meters (60 feet) in length before it became extinct 2.6 million years ago.
Check Out These Amazing Artworks Created With Microbes In A Petri Dish
Photo credit:
Mehmet Berkmen and Maria Penil/American Society for Microbiology
Science and art are often seen as opposing ways of looking at the world. However, as Einstein liked to say, they are just “branches of the same tree.” The entrants for this year's American Society for Microbiology's Agar Art competition have neatly showcased this overlapping harmony between art and science.
The World’s First Wi-Fi Pavement Is Being Piloted In The UK
Photo credit:
Fred Wilson, Chiltern District Council’s Cabinet member for Customer Services and Chesham Town Councillor, standing by the new Smart Wi-Fi pavement. Virgin Media
Not having Wi-Fi – the most frustrating "First World problem" of them all – might soon be a worry of the past. The streets of Chesham’s town center in Buckinghamshire, England, will now feature Smart Wi-Fi Pavements.
PC PRANK, PATRIARCHY, PLAGIARISM & PMORE
Topics include: PC reaction to prank on transphobia, my views on feminism, plagiarism issue & the direction this channel will be taking from this point moving forward. Sorry for the length of this video. For convenience, here are the time stamps per topic:
PC PRANK: 1:26 FEMINISM: 7:15 PLAGIARISM: 11:52 (specifically 14:32) NEW DIRECTIONS: 18:22
Be my patreon! http://www.patreon.com/Jaclyn
Get my awesome tshirts! http://www.jaclynglenn.com
Main channel: http://www.youtube.com/Jaclyn
Vlog channel: http://www.youtube.com/JaclynVlogs
Music channel: http://www.youtube.com/JaclynNoelMusic
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jaclynglenn
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JaclynGlenn
Tumblr: http://jaclynglenn.tumblr.com/
Google +: https://plus.google.com/+JaclynGlenn
Vine: https://vine.co/u/1098021519956815872
Instagram: http://instagram.com/jaclynglenn
I only accept friends that I know, but this is if you want to follow my personal facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JaclynLovesCats
BUSINESS INQUIRIES ONLY: jaclynglenn@gmail.com
*Please help support this channel!*
Be my patreon! http://www.patreon.com/Jaclyn
or
Use the email jaclynglenn@gmail.com to donate via PayPal, or go to https://www.youtube.com/user/JaclynGlenn and click the “donate” button at the top right corner. =)
Send me snail mail! PO BOX listed @ https://www.youtube.com/user/JaclynGlenn/about
Eyes on the Rise
Do you live near the ocean? Maybe you will. New research on different factors relating to sea level rise, from increasing understanding the behavior of Antarctic ice sheets to revised global temperature predictions, are coming together to create an increasingly dystopian (and damp) picture for 2100. It's increasingly plausible that by 2060 we may see a one meter increase in sea levels.
One meter doesn’t sound that threatening, right? I mean, that’s way shorter than me. But check out these maps. Here’s what a one meter rise in sea level would mean for one of my favorite parts of the US.
It turns out that a one-meter rise in sea level is super upsetting! And take a look at poor Florida.
Key West is gone! These sea level rise predictions aren't coming from people on the fringe. These are reasonable, even fairly conservative, estimates for 2100 (if not before). Sea level rise is likely to affect coastal cities all around the US, with particular concerns for places like the Bay Area, Charleston, and New York. I suggest using this handy and distressing website from Climate Central to check out when you and your loved ones may need life rafts.
Sea level rise isn't just an American problem. Even moderate sea rise will severely impact many major coastal cities worldwide, from Calcutta to Dakar. Where will all these people go?
More sobering news: while this increase in sea level rise is almost certainly going to happen, it could be a lot worse if we don’t take real action to cut carbon emissions. A crucial, if often underrated, prerequisite for such action is a public understanding of the science on which these predictions are based. This is a large part of the reason that NCSE's work to defend the teaching of climate science is so important. The reality of sea level rise is not a debate. It's something that is already happening. If we don't understand the non-controversial science behind this phenomenon, we might end up all wet.
Science Denial in Utah?
This past week my e-mail in-box has been filling up with messages about Utah.
“Have you seen what's going on there?” people are asking me. “They are trying to write climate denial into the standards!”
If you believe the media (Newsweek, The Salt Lake Tribune, and even my most beloved gossip blog, Jezebel), the state of Utah is considering the adoption of middle school science standards that would teach sixth graders that the Earth’s climate is staying relatively constant, thus denying climate change.
People are alarmed about the possibility. Understandably so, since there was reportedly pushback against the inclusion of climate change in a previous draft of the standards. People want to know what NCSE is going to do about it.
What's going on in Utah sounds terrible. And it would be terrible. If it were true.
But guess what? It’s not true.
Someone—preferably a reporter—should have read the standards and carefully obtained expert opinion about them before getting in a lather. Fortunately, that's what we do here at NCSE, and so let me share with you what the standard actually says:
6.3.4 Construct an explanation supported by evidence for how the natural greenhouse effect maintains Earth’s energy balance and a relatively constant temperature. Emphasize how the natural greenhouse effect is necessary for maintaining life on Earth. Examples could include comparisons between Earth and the moon or other planets.
What this says, in effect, is that the “natural greenhouse effect” helps Earth maintain temperatures hospitable for life, as compared to, say, Venus or Mars, where the greenhouse effect is just no help at all. (NASA has a pretty good explanation of this.)
So let’s have a quick Q&A.
Is what the standard says wrong? No.
Is the standard claiming “Earth’s Climate Maintains a ‘Relatively Constant Temperature’” (as the Jezebel headline describes it)? No, it’s not. Climate and the greenhouse effect are two distinct but interacting phenomena. For a refresher, see the EPA’s video explaining how the greenhouse effect relates to climate change.
Does the standard promote the idea that the climate is not currently changing? No.
Could the standard be misused to promote climate change denial? Probably, although it would be a stretch. But there’s probably no way to write a standard that couldn’t be misused.
So, if the coverage of climate change is mostly okay in these middle school science standards, can we go home and nap for the rest of the day?
Well, no. Although the climate change standards are okay, the evolution standards (in seventh grade science) are problematic, and that is where we need the most help right now.
What’s wrong with the standards addressing evolution?
First and foremost, they don’t mention evolution by name. Instead, they say “change in species over time.” That’s not just awkward, it’s inaccurate. Moreover, they don’t address natural selection, whereas the equivalent section of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) does. And since the standards in Utah’s “Change of Species Over Time” strand otherwise match the NGSS standards, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that natural selection was deliberately omitted.
It looks to me like the reporters have picked up the wrong story: it’s evolution, not climate change, that’s under siege in Utah.
So what is the answer? Keep e-mailing us with your concerns—NCSE is the go-to place on these issues. Better yet, Utahns should voice their concerns directly to the state board of education.
If you are in Utah, you can review the draft science standards and offer your comments on-line. You will be asked, for the introduction and each strand in a grade level's standards, to recommend approving it as it stands, approving it with revisions, or rejecting it. You can enter a 1000-character comment to explain your recommendation. You can commend the standards that present the science correctly and forthrightly and offer suggestions for improving standards that are unclear or incomplete. And, of course, this is your chance to call for climate change to be presented in sixth grade instead of eighth grade and for evolution and natural selection to be presented properly in seventh grade.
And if you’re not in Utah? Do you have friends or family there? Let’s get busy!
ريتشارد دوكنز's Blog
- ريتشارد دوكنز's profile
- 106 followers
