Vince is essentially correct in his claim that factor analysis (FA) does not
interpret. To be more precise, FA is not even a single method, but it refers
to a collection of related algebraic manipulations which is part of a large
family of analyses of covariance matrices. FA can be exploratory, where you
allow the data to "speak for itself" or confirmatory, where you test
particular hypotheses about the underlying structure of the data set. The
data reduction approach that Vince and I think Hammond is talking about
sounds like Principle Components Analysis, an exploratory approach. For a
quick, easy and reliable reference, Sage University has a series of booklets
on statistical procedures and there is one by Kim and Mueller that
introduces this class of analysis. This discussion has sometimes given the
impression that FA is some complex, exotic statistical approach that few
understand, when in fact, it is commonly used and discussed in personality
assessments, aptitude and achievement test constructions, and diagnostic
measures. Many graduate students in various branches of psychology take such
a course in their second or third year.
And BTW, the ENP by Hans Eysenck is only one of several models that reduces
personality measurements to common factors. A much more widely accepted
model is the Big Five (as the name suggests, there are not 3, but 5
factors). Eysenck's ENP has not been consistently supported in the
literature.
Hope this helps.
Adrian.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vince Calhoun [mailto:vcalhoun@jhmi.edu]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 8:33 AM
To: George Hammond
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Just a short comment on Factor Analysis, and on God...
> ear and said he thought it was a giant featherless bird. But when they
all
> got together, they figured out it was an elephant. OK, this is what
> FACTOR ANALYSIS does.. it takes many small random measurements on an
> unknown mysterious object, and tells you what it is. In the case of
Actually, factor analysis does not interpret the result ("tell you what it
is"). It simply attempts to reduce data comprised of many variables, to
fewer
variables, which then must be interpreted based upon the investigators
knowledge of the problem. There is also another step (beyond reducing the
data) which is called "rotation". In this step the eigenvectors are rotated
to change the way they project upon the original variables so that the
results
are<more>interpretable. The rotation and interpretation can be quite
subjective and thus must be very carefully examined. Many statisticians
have
problems with rotation. I think it can be useful, but only if done very
carefully. I haven't seen enough details in the work being presented to
judge
it(for the devil is in the details). For example, the selection of the
number
of factors in often based upon variance (only extract up until a certain
percent of variance is explained). This number can make a big difference in
certain cases...my point is that the analysis is not so cut and dry as it is
being portrayed. I'm seeing none of the details
necessary for a replication (even in the peer reviewed article), only bold
claims about the implications of the results. An association does not
necessarily imply causation, but this is not even mentioned.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE (IMHO) IS:
Finally, it seems to me that this work is completely naturalistic. The
Bible is reduced (a priori) to complete metaphor...including any
of the miracles in scripture. His definition of God is not consistent with
the God of Christianity. He simply claims to have found a way to
explain all the miracles of the Bible in a scientific, naturalistic way.
The
way He discusses the Bible is not consistent, IMHO, with Christianity in any
way, shape, or form and reveals a naturalistic approach to God. These
findings could perhaps be used as another example of Romans 1 (God's general
revelation through creation).
To Hammond: If you are on this list then you agree with a statement saying
you confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostle's creeds.
Based
only upon those creeds, the God of Christianity is distinct from the God of
any other world religion. Not only that, but His Son, Jesus, provides the
only possible reconciliation to this God (based upon Christ's statements).
He, in His great love, provides all of humanity with acceptance through
Christ if they but accept what is made available to them. I do the science
that I do as a Christian who loves God because He first loved me. What do
the
findings you present tell us about the God of Christianity?
Just my two cents...(sorry to keep the discussion going...I'll stop now)
For His Glory,
VDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 20 2001 - 13:32:49 EDT