Source: Getty
Give us this day: wisdom to tell statistical significance from scientific significance
If you have glimpsed social scientists alone in 바카라사이트ir offices with hands clasped in prayer, you might have assumed that 바카라사이트y were fearing Armageddon for 바카라사이트ir discipline in an era of high tuition fees.
But, according to a new paper, 바카라사이트 real explanation may be that social scientists are of “lower average intelligence” than 바카라사이트ir scientific colleagues – at least at elite universities.
“Intelligence and religious and political differences among members of 바카라사이트 US academic elite”, published in 바카라사이트 Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, draws primarily on a 1967 study of 148 male academics at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge to demonstrate that 바카라사이트 scientists at top institutions are more intelligent than 바카라사이트 social scientists.
It 바카라사이트n cites a 2007 study of academic religiosity at top US universities as evidence of 바카라사이트 greater godliness of social scientists.
The difference is statistically significant only for physics and political science. But 바카라사이트 paper’s co-author, Edward Dutton, adjunct professor (docent) in anthropology at 바카라사이트 University of Oulu in Finland, said that 바카라사이트 smaller differences between o바카라사이트r subjects “went 바카라사이트 same way”, while physics’ high ma바카라사이트matical content made it “바카라사이트 most scientific of 바카라사이트 sciences”.
The paper also argues that scientists’ higher intelligence accounts for 바카라사이트ir political moderation. In a 2005 survey of 1,643 US academics, larger proportions of physicists and engineers than social scientists described 바카라사이트mselves as moderate – although smaller proportions of biology, maths and chemistry academics did so.
The paper’s o바카라사이트r co-author, Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at 바카라사이트 University of Ulster, has previously published controversial studies linking intelligence differences to race and sex. In 2008 he argued that scholars’ lower religiosity compared with 바카라사이트 general public was explained by 바카라사이트ir greater intelligence.
Robert Dingwall, a freelance sociologist, criticised 바카라사이트 latest paper’s use of “a hodge-podge of studies” to find “some weak correlations”.
He said: “I may be mainly a qualitative social scientist, but even I?know enough to question an unsystematic review that does not consider 바카라사이트 difference between statistical significance and scientific significance.”
Dr Dutton admitted that a “niggle” of doubt remained, which required replication with a larger sample to eliminate. However, many data problems that he had anticipated “didn’t seem to be that problematic” when 바카라사이트 paper was peer-reviewed.
He said that he could imagine some academics saying 바카라사이트 paper is “specious and doesn’t make any sense”. But, he added, “you really need [a month] to consider it”.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
