Posted on 11/09/2004 4:28:00 AM PST by TaxRelief
That's so Clinton of you :)
Bleah. A perfectly good rhetorical device was ruined by association with that person.
(1) Let us know if you find out that this was funded by a private company. It would be quite interesting to know.
(2) Students do not come close to paying the costs of their tuition. Taxpayers pick up the bulk of it.
(3) Taxpayers pay the advisors' salaries, provide the facilities, the paper, and the computer processing.
Color could theoretically be physically detectable, if you think about it.
Think of "Light" as a stream of tiny clusters of pulsating, energized photons. Color variations are caused by energy differences, which result in differences in the rate at which those *little* photons pulsate (wavelength).
The question in this case would be: is it possible for a human hand to perceive differences in photon energy?
Fascinating.
(1) Let us know if you find out that this was funded by a private company. It would be quite interesting to know.
(2) Students do not come close to paying the costs of their tuition. Taxpayers pick up the bulk of it.
(3) Taxpayers pay the advisors' salaries, provide the facilities, the paper, and the computer processing.
The major cost of funding a study is in the labor, using undergraduate student labor reduces that cost enormously.
If the tax support of universities is a factor, then we are paying for research not only in sociology but also in physics, archeology, theology, math etc. This could be a worthwhile study – people often complain that our kids are gullible, believing in mysticism, the paranormal, psychics and fortunetellers. With studies like this one at least we have an idea of how big a thing it is. The numbers seem to show it as not much of a big thing for them.
I’m really surprised at some of the numbers. 44% who never attend religious services said communication with the dead might be possible versus 23% of teens who attend more than once a week. I thought the later number would be higher – particularly as the Judeo-Christian tradition states it as a given, as well as fortunate telling.
There is no doubt that many studies, possibly this one as well, result in worthwhile information for someone.
Indeed, most of the "youth and religion" studies are funded in part by neo-con foundations. Many of the researchers involved in groups like the "Ethics and Public Policy Center" end up working as Republican policy analysts.
This is not a question of the value of the information: but rather, does the government belong in the research business at all?
If we were to agree that government has a valid right to sponsor research--with taxpayer dollars--then what should the criteria be for determining studies that benefit the "general welfare"? Should it be limited to protecting life or should it be extended to exploring all the curiosities of the world?
A logical deconstruct of biblical warnings about the "dark arts," would lead to the conclusion that there would be no need for warnings if the paranormal was not possible.
If this is so, what is the Catholic response to a situation like the one that recently occurred in Washington State?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1241572/posts
If we were to agree that government has a valid right to sponsor research--with taxpayer dollars--then what should the criteria be for determining studies that benefit the "general welfare"? Should it be limited to protecting life or should it be extended to exploring all the curiosities of the world?
It should support the views of the Party In Power, like the anti-marijuana research of the ‘60’s? Hardly, but some would support that as long as their party is the one in power.
I think there should be wide latitude of research – and yes, at taxpayer expense. Pure research has led to many worthwhile things.
"Do you believe in the possibility of communicating with the dead directly or through séances, definitely, maybe, or not at all"
The question is worded in such a way that it could be interpreted to mean a variety of things. "Communication" could give the impression of chit-chat. Seances probably scare people off, since it is considered hokey or taboo or both. The problem is we don't know how each subset interpreted the question so we don't know what they were really responding to.
“Do you believe in the possibility of communicating…”
Good point – in the above question “possibility” is a key word. I believe that all things are possible. Some things are improbable.
When I was taking Sociology 320, Methods of Sociological Research, we learned what type of wording will skew the results of a study. The idea was that we would avoid using such wording (or if applying for a grant we could guarantee desired results?). We picked apart a lot of studies that should never have been published.
Looking back at this one, I don’t know if the question really would skew the results. If it was aimed at the average American student they probably don’t know the difference between “possible” and “probable”.
Hahaha! I knew that was wrong when I typed it but....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.