Survey: Churchgoers more likely to back torture

[Gokul43201]

I don't get the same numbers you do. Tossing the middle section out increases the degrees of freedom by removing a constraint. Did you do that? In any event, let's stipulate that what you say is true qualitatively at least: the effect becomes more significant by removing more moderate responses from the data. That may improve the statistics, but it makes the sociology more suspect: now you are ascribing attitudes to an entire group that are statistically significant only for the most extreme members of the group.

Where did I say I was doing that (generalizing beyond the extremes)? In fact, I specifically said you would have to "rewrite your hypothesis to test only the difference in tendencies of the two extremes of the churchgoers (the very regulars and the nearly nevers)". Nothing there about ascribing those differences in attitudes to anyone else. And given the new hypothesis, you do not gain back a degree of freedom by throwing out the middle group: if you do not belong in one extreme, you automatically belong in the other, since we are only studying the extremes.

But you don't even have to go this far. You can reject independence at the 92% level (my number) for all three groups with two choices and at the 80% level for all three groups with four choices (your number).

 

[Vanadium 50]

Where did I say I was doing that (generalizing beyond the extremes)? In fact, I specifically said you would have to "rewrite your hypothesis to test only the difference in tendencies of the two extremes of the churchgoers (the very regulars and the nearly nevers)".

The point I am making is that if you have a statistically insignificant result when you consider the moderates and the extremes, and a statistically significant test when you consider the extremes, you must have a statistically insignificant test when testing the moderates. (OK, you could have a statistically significant test in the other direction, but let's ignore that)

Given that, to draw conclusions about the entire group is wrong. You already know where the effect comes from: the extremes.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Quote of deleted post

"Hell" is highly symbolic. It is primarily considered to be separation from god and the torment that the "wicked" put themselves through (somewhat a psychological thing). It is a minority belief that only a very few will receive "life ever lasting" and the rest eternal torment for their sins. Similar to the minority interpretation of Islam that war must be made upon the unbelievers it is a relatively small faction that gives a bad name to the rest.

 

[Gokul43201]

The point I am making is that if you have a statistically insignificant result when you consider the moderates and the extremes, and a statistically significant test when you consider the extremes, you must have a statistically insignificant test when testing the moderates. (OK, you could have a statistically significant test in the other direction, but let's ignore that)

But this is irrelevant, since we do not have a statistically insignificant result when you consider the moderates, unless you consider a 92% confidence level unconvincing (or if you disagree with that number, and believe the correct value is much smaller).

Given that, to draw conclusions about the entire group is wrong. You already know where the effect comes from: the extremes.

Like I said before, I wasn't drawing conclusions about the whole group based on the results of the test on the extremes. I was drawing the same conclusion for the entire group as that for the extreme group, only because it was independently arrived at from the test on the entire group, though with about a 5% lower confidence.

And incidentally, this so-called "extreme" group on the religious side (those that claim to attend church at least weekly): they happen to make up at least a third^1,2,3 of the US adult population, so they are not really anything resembling a fringe minority.

1. Gallup Poll

2. Barna Research

3. University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure the survey is so much to blame for anything. It's the article that panders to preconceptions, I think that is more at fault in attempting to draw more from it than may be there.

I mean after all ... religion that once brought us the Inquisition ... is just too tempting to think predisposes people to torture.

In what way does the CNN article "draw more" from the survey results than may be in it? And where in that article does it say (or even suggest) that religion predisposes people to torture? And could you please quote relevant parts of the article in response to the above questions?

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure the survey is so much to blame for anything. It's the article that panders to preconceptions, I think that is more at fault in attempting to draw more from it than may be there.

I mean after all ... religion that once brought us the Inquisition ... is just too tempting to think predisposes people to torture.

Again, as Evo asked, how do we define torture. The Inquisition torture discussion certainly doesn't lean toward the "outrage of "waterboarding".
http://www.torturamuseum.com/

 

[Gokul43201]

Again, as Evo asked, how do we define torture.

It shouldn't actually matter how it is defined¹ if the issue is one of legality rather than morality. All that would matter is that the US joined (signed and ratified, some 2 decades ago) the UN Convention Against Torture, thereby making it illegal to torture (whatever it may be).

[1] If you nevertheless want to know what that may be, the definition is, according to the UN CAT:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.​

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It shouldn't actually matter how it is defined

Apparently it didn't matter to those who supported the use of torture either.

 

[LowlyPion]

Again, as Evo asked, how do we define torture. The Inquisition torture discussion certainly doesn't lean toward the "outrage of "waterboarding".
http://www.torturamuseum.com/

No. During the middle ages, they would throw you in the lake with your hands and feet bound. If you floated then the Devil was in you and you were lying and so they burned you.

If you sank and drowned, ... well you were apparently telling the Truth. C'est la vie.

 

[WhoWee]

No. During the middle ages, they would throw you in the lake with your hands and feet bound. If you floated then the Devil was in you and you were lying and so they burned you.

If you sank and drowned, ... well you were apparently telling the Truth. C'est la vie.

Did you open this link?
http://www.torturamuseum.com/

I think most Americans would consider a lack of toilet paper (let alone no indoor plumbing) a form of torture.

 

[Huckleberry]

The title of the article is "Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful" not "Survey: Churchgoers more likely to back torture". Am I mistaken that sentence was added by CNN, or was it in the results of the survey? Unless I'm reading this thing wrong not only are churchgoers more likely to approve of torture, but they are also less likely to approve of torture, depending on which church they belong to. 30% of mainline Protestants said torture is never justified. 25% of the religiously unaffiliated said it is never justified. A whopping 12.5% of evangelical Protestants said torture is never justified. Yet somehow the caption of the article, and the general tone of this thread, groups all churchgoers as having the opinion of evangelical Protestants. I figure I must be missing something because I don't arrive at the same conclusion.

 

[Moonbear]

I think Zoobie hit the nail on the head here. Whether or not the results are statistically significant, or the sample size adequate, if the question itself is biased, any conclusion dependent on the analysis is suspect.