Subject: Re: Critics pseudo science
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:17:47 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall <Sune.Nordwall@home.se>

Michael Kopp wrote:

But I do not find Dugan's survey objectionable in the way you do; it doesn't purport to be a scientific study.

It is put forth as a sort of empirical survey, using the technique of a questionnaire, sent to possibly all parents at the SF Waldorf school, with a number of questions to test the thesis', without formulating one explicitely as the one actually tested by the survey:

- (1) "that parents choose the school because of its spiritual approach" (report of what the class teacher of the son of the author said, introduction) in the "conclusion" described as

- (2) "the parents choose the Waldorf school because they agree with its philosophy", taken by the author to mean as a possibility that

- (3) "the parents were all anthroposophists" (introduction).

The first part of the survey (RELIGIOUS BACKGROUNDS) can be taken to investigate an implicit interpretation of (3) as the meaning of (1) and hints at that not being the case, as noone of those who answered the survey (12%) said that "they were affiliated with the Anthroposophical Society or the Christian Community, a church following Steiner" as the criteria used by the author to generally define "anthroposophists".

The second part of the survey (PHILOSOPHICAL OR RELIGIOUS WORLD-VIEWS) can be taken to test (2). The authors own summary of the answers: "Several of these world-view statements indicate some kinship to the anthroposophical philosophy, but none of them use Steiner's characteristic terminology" can be taken be a general if not specific and explicit support of (2).

The third part of the survey uses a number of questions to investigate the parents support of

- Biblical literalism (Q1) and traditional religious beliefs (Q2)

- New Age beliefs (Q3-Q6)

- a number of views, Q9-Q11 + Q15 taken by the author, when answered positively, to be criteria indicating support of anthroposophy.

The third part also contains some other questions meant to investigate the support of

- "scientifically oriented medicine" (Q7) resp "anthroposophical medicine" in the sense of a superior alternative to "scientifically oriented medicine" (Q8).

It also contains a number of other questions Q12-Q14 not explicitely used in the reported "analysis" part, that constitutes the fourth part of the survey.

The fourth part is described as "ANALYSIS". Normally this would mean an analysis of the answers in relation to the hypothesis they have been asked to test the validity of. I would maybe also contain a discussion of the validity and reliability of the answers in relation to the (not explicit) tested hypothesis.

The author does none of this, but instead uses some of the answers to analyse some side issues to the main issue that he finds "interesting"; the possible correlation between support of "New Age beliefs" and "anthroposophical beliefs", and the correlation between strength of support for "the anthroposophical world-view" and number of years the parents have had children in the SF Waldorf school, interpreted as "the efficiency of the school in converting families to the anthroposophical world-view".

The fifth part of the survey is termed "CONCLUSIONS". Here specific knowledge and support of a number of alleged views of "anthroposophy" are implicitely taken as the main criteria for concluding that "The school's claim that the parents choose the Waldorf school because they agree with its philosophy is false".

The "conclusion" is based on a not explicit analysis of the answers (which normally would have been but wasn't done in the fourth part). The answers are however generally taken to show that "most parents know very little about anthroposophy" and that "the responding parents directly opposed some tenets of anthroposophy, especially in the sciences" as understood by the author.

Even if it was true that most parents lacked more specific and extensive knowledge of anthroposophy, taken to be the "philosophy" of waldorf education, it does not follow from that that they don't "agree with its philosophy" in general. No question specifically addresses the question if the parents agree with the basic philosophy of Waldorf education and what the parents might mean with their agreement.

It is only generally concluded by the author on the basis of his view of anthroposophy, as it comes to expression in his formulation of questions like 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and his interpretation of the answers to those questions, but not supported by for example agreement by explicit "anthroposophist" on the questions as expressions of valid criteria for "defining" "anthroposophists" or "anthroposophy", to the extent that that could be done, which at least would have given given the study some weight.

Looking more directly at the possible hypothesis' tested by the questionnaire, it seems clear that noone of the 32 parents who answered the questionnaire of the 270 who recieved it calls him- or herself an "anthroposophist" ("hypothesis" 3).

Hypothesis "(2)" is generally supported by the answers to Q3-Q6, but as the author has "reserved" the views coming to expression in the agreement with those statements for "New agers", he does not take any of them as also supporting an anthroposophical worldview in any sense, which is one of the systematic faults in the survey.

Hypothesis "(1)" as the main hypothesis of the study is not specifically studied in the study. Neither does the "analysis" analyse the answers in relation to the main hypothesis. It is therefore difficult to find the "conclusion" as it is described; "The school's claim that the parents choose the Waldorf school because they agree with its philosophy is false" to be supported by the study, as it is purported to be.

To the degree that the author's understanding of scientific methodology, in the form he strongly supports it verbally on this list, comes to expression in his use of it in the study done and reported on his site, it is difficult to see what weight his views on science and scientific methodology as used by others may have;

[someone:]

Dan is the one making epistimological pronouncements, bashing real scientists and licensed doctors, claiming to know where Goethe resides in the history of science, calling his workshop a "lab", etc,etc.  He complains about pseudo science and that real science can take the heat of vigorous review.  But when you focus a critical eye at something he actually produced, all of a sudden it's "aw c'mon guys, I'm just l'il ole me doing my science fair type stuff, gimme a break". (that must be the rigorous defense of science part) 

[someone]

Doesn't sound like the same guy who wants to revoke licenses from registered doctors (calling them quacks and dangerous) and makes one line pronouncements about what other people mean, knows for sure the inside scoop of Naziism, dismisses real scientists as fringe thinkers.

 ... there's ample evidence of the quackery of the doctors Dugan wants de-registered. We have some right here in Godzone, doing cancer therapy, for instance, with iscador. But I can't name them publicly, or write about them for the media, exposing their quackery with scientific evidence (and the medical profession is just about as powerless, and protective of its registered brethren) without risking huge defamation suits.

[Michael Kopp]:

Do you not believe, [someone], that many registered, licensed, qualified medical practitioners are either quacks or incompetents or fools? How about some statistics to prove that 100 pecent of the profession is lily-white, [someone]. Surely you don't believe that registration is foolproof?

[someone]:

Chand, if anything is mean spirited its Dan's web site.  He's the pot calling the kettle black.  I don't feel you need to be sorry about pointing out what you did, if you regret having it come out due to a mean spirited feeling that's a personal thing.  I am grateful that you called Dan on his crappy survey.

Mr Schelly, did you read the Atlantic magazine article about SWA by Todd Oppenheimer?

[Michael Kopp]:

What did you think of the rigour of Mr Oppenheimer's research and surveying technique, or his presentation of the same?

Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society

Back to list of postings