Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Which is why I considered the research SkinWalker was using to be complete and total garbage.
I don't think this to be the case. I think -and this is just my opinion- that you ignored the research I cited because it threatens your preconceived notion of the way things must be. I think (again, just my opinion) that you exemplify the conclusions of studies that link conservatism, extreme religiosity, and cognitive function. I base this opinion on the fact that my synopses of the various research demonstrated how even if you fallaciously conclude that one
of the researchers had issues of negligence with a totally different study
that the data stand on their own merit and are available independently
from the statistical analyses conducted by said researcher.
Moreover, the statistical methods are clearly outlined as are the data (which are from an independent source). It, therefore, follows that refusing to acknowledge or to even critically analyze the data and the conclusions (including a careful scrutiny of the methodology) is indicative of either limitations in cognitive function or deliberate ignorance. Or both.
I add, also, that I only point this out since you've yet to offer any rational evaluation of the data but, rather, choose to engage in argumentum ad hominem regarding the character of the researcher. I wouldn't make the accusation here, since we aren't expected to adhere to professional academic standards, but at an academic conference this would earn you an accusation of intellectual cowardice: too afraid of the data and it's conclusions to deal with it directly resorting instead to straw man arguments that are easier to tear down and ad hominem attacks on the researcher to cloud the issue.