Religiosity Predicts Evidentiary Standards

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 546-551
Author(s):  
Emilio J. C. Lobato ◽  
Shadab Tabatabaeian ◽  
Morgan Fleming ◽  
Sven Sulzmann ◽  
Colin Holbrook
Keyword(s):  
Lower Threshold ◽  
Causal Claim ◽  
Supportive Evidence ◽  
Standards Of Evidence ◽  
Scientific Claims ◽  
Evidentiary Standards

Research shows that religious and nonreligious individuals have different standards of evidence for religious and scientific claims. Here, in a preregistered replication and extension of McPhetres and Zuckerman, participants read about an effect attributed to either a scientific or religious cause, then assessed how much evidence, in the form of successful replications, would be needed to confirm or to reject the causal claim. As previously observed, religious individuals exhibited a bias for believing religious claims relative to scientific claims, while nonreligious individuals were consistent in their standards of evidence across domains. In a novel extension examining standards of evidence with respect to failures of replication, we found that religious individuals were consistent across domains, whereas nonreligious individuals indicated a lower threshold for rejecting religious claims relative to scientific claims. These findings indicate asymmetries in the evaluation of claims based on the presence versus absence of supportive evidence.

Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simine Vazire
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Subjective Experience ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Shared Goal ◽  
Standards Of Evidence ◽  
Crisis In Psychology ◽  
Scientific Claims

The credibility revolution (sometimes referred to as the “replicability crisis”) in psychology has brought about many changes in the standards by which psychological science is evaluated. These changes include (a) greater emphasis on transparency and openness, (b) a move toward preregistration of research, (c) more direct-replication studies, and (d) higher standards for the quality and quantity of evidence needed to make strong scientific claims. What are the implications of these changes for productivity, creativity, and progress in psychological science? These questions can and should be studied empirically, and I present my predictions here. The productivity of individual researchers is likely to decline, although some changes (e.g., greater collaboration, data sharing) may mitigate this effect. The effects of these changes on creativity are likely to be mixed: Researchers will be less likely to pursue risky questions; more likely to use a broad range of methods, designs, and populations; and less free to define their own best practices and standards of evidence. Finally, the rate of scientific progress—the most important shared goal of scientists—is likely to increase as a result of these changes, although one’s subjective experience of making progress will likely become rarer.

Religious People Endorse Different Standards of Evidence When Evaluating Religious Versus Scientific Claims

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 836-842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathon McPhetres ◽  
Miron Zuckerman
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Methodology ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Religion And Science ◽  
Religious People ◽  
Standards Of Evidence ◽  
Scientific Claims ◽  
The Relationship

Recent research has begun to investigate the relationship between religion and science. However, it remains unclear whether religious and nonreligious people differ on the standards of evidence used when evaluating claims in religious versus scientific contexts. Across three studies ( N = 702), we presented participants with effects that were attributed to scientific methodology or to God and asked them to rate how many more times an effect needs to be repeated in order to have certainty in the outcome. Results showed that religious people requested fewer repetitions compared to nonreligious people when an effect was attributed to prayer, and fewer repetitions when an effect was attributed to prayer compared to scientific methodology. Nonreligious people were relatively consistent across conditions. These results suggest that religious people have less stringent standards of evidence when evaluating nonscientific claims. Directions for future research are also discussed.

Holding replication studies to mainstream standards of evidence

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duane T. Wegener ◽  
Leandre R. Fabrigar
Keyword(s):  
Replication Studies ◽  
Replication Research ◽  
Standards Of Evidence ◽  
Do So

AbstractReplications can make theoretical contributions, but are unlikely to do so if their findings are open to multiple interpretations (especially violations of psychometric invariance). Thus, just as studies demonstrating novel effects are often expected to empirically evaluate competing explanations, replications should be held to similar standards. Unfortunately, this is rarely done, thereby undermining the value of replication research.

The role of Record of Rights (Khatian) in determining title or possession: An overview

IIUC Studies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 33-46
Author(s):  
Kalim Ullah
Keyword(s):  
Human Life ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Critical Element ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Supportive Evidence ◽  
Land Administration ◽  
Holy Quran ◽  
The Holy Quran ◽  
Religious Systems

Human beings are deeply related to land. Human beings take birth on land, live on land, die on land and mixes with land ultimately. As stated in the holy Quran: ‘We (Allah) created you (human beings) from the soil, we shall make you return to the soil and We shall call you back again from the soil’ (20:55). Human life is surrounded by soil i.e. land. So, land is a highly completed issue of human life involving economic, social, political, cultural and often religious systems. Land administration is thus a critical element and often a pre-condition for peaceful society and sustainable development. In administrating land, Khatian or record of rights plays a vital role to determine the rights and interests of the respective parties as supportive evidence. In this article, discussion is mainly made on the fact that Khatian or record of rights is not a document of title solely but it may be an evidence of title as well as possession. IIUC Studies Vol.15(0) December 2018: 33-46

Inside the Enemy's Computer

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clement Guitton
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Technical Problem ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Cyber Attack ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Current Thinking ◽  
Standards Of Evidence

Attribution — tracing those responsible for a cyber attack — is of primary importance when classifying it as a criminal act, an act of war, or an act of terrorism. Three assumptions dominate current thinking: attribution is a technical problem; it is unsolvable; and it is unique. Approaching attribution as a problem forces us to consider it either as solved or unsolved. Yet attribution is far more nuanced, and is best approached as a process in constant flux, driven by judicial and political pressures. In the criminal context, courts must assess the guilt of criminals, mainly based on technical evidence. In the national security context, decision-makers must analyze unreliable and mainly non-technical information in order to identify an enemy of the state. Attribution in both contexts is political: in criminal cases, laws reflect society’s prevailing norms and powers; in national security cases, attribution reflects a state’s will to maintain, increase or assert its power. However, both processes differ on many levels. The constraints, which reflect common aspects of many other political issues, constitute the structure of the book: the need for judgment calls, the role of private companies, the standards of evidence, the role of time, and the plausible deniability of attacks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document