Quality, not Quantity!

When Gnu atheists are confronted with the empirical fact that the popular Gnu scientists who continually attack Francis Collins have actually published fewer scientific studies than he has (even when we combine all their work), a common way to rationalize this is to assert “quality, not quantity, matters.”  While it is true that quality matters, there is a serious problem with this rejoinder that renders it ineffective.

Y’see, if we shift our focus from quantity to quality, we are shifting from objective reality to subjective reality.  For how does one objectively define and measure “quality?”  It would seem to me that “quality” is in the eye of the beholder.  Must the study represent a breakthrough that serves a current paradigm?  Must it entail a novel shift in the way we look at some problem?  Can it be just a solid experimental design that produces meaty data?  Can it simply replicate and thus confirm an earlier study?  Everyone will have an opinion on this and that’s the problem – they will be opinionsSubjective judgments based on biases and personal values.

As it turns out, the inherent irony of the simple little analysis continues to spawn further layers of irony.  For in this case, the Gnus, who proclaim strict and total adherence to “objective reality” that is delivered by “objective evidence,” want to retreat into the realm of subjectivity.

And why do I get the feeling some folks are desperately looking for ways to overcome their cognitive dissonance?  I would not be surprised to learn that some Gnu, some place, is already trying to come up with a response that doesn’t smell like rationalization.

He might, for example, begin by envisioning a result like this in his mind:

In this case, IPQC would stand for “Invisible Pink Quality Coefficient.”  The trick would then be to look for some metric that can represent the IPQC.  Look here, look there, look everywhere.  For if that metric could be found to support the preconceived conclusion, why then, the Gnu could really shout “Quality, not Quantity, matters!”

In the meantime, we’re left only with the implication that the IPQC graph above is real.  But the community that sells itself as having some deep commitment to evidence needs to get to work.  Perhaps, for example, someone will take Sam Harris’s two papers and find a way to claim their Great Quality eclipses the sum total of Francis Collins’ accomplishments.  After all, two unicorns are worth more than 384 horses any day, right?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Quality, not Quantity!

  1. Bilbo says:

    You’re having way too much fun with this, Mike.

  2. Jim says:

    One measure of quality that has been mentioned is citations. The more people cite a scientific paper, the more influential it is, and therefore the greater the impact is on the scientific community. So, if we compare Collins to the other gnus, “quality” would look like this:

    Most cited scientific paper:

    Collins – 13,365
    Dawkins – 968
    Coyne – 750
    Myers – 383
    Harris – 46

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s