or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ignorance about what "harms children"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ignorance about what "harms children" - Page 7

post #241 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
The researchers are conducting careful studies, measuring statistical correlations, and then reporting their results with caveats about the scope and limitations of their results. This counts as "rampant speculation"? Rampant?

Yes. They're assigning a cause-effect relationship that just happens to conincide with everything the gay advocacy community wants.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #242 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm

More biological evidence. I guess it would suck to be the last of 7 boys!

Can I have five pence for each time the word "may" appears in that article?

If you would give that then I could probably afford to fly over and have a beer with you since it would easily cover the airline fare.

Also that article makes the case that homosexuality is in fact NOT genetic. Which way we going to go with this now? Is it a developmental defect or genetic?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #243 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
The researchers are conducting careful studies, measuring statistical correlations, and then reporting their results with caveats about the scope and limitations of their results. This counts as "rampant speculation"? Rampant?

Well considering the fact that it attributes an outcome to an unknown cause within the womb that also somehow builds up from pregnancy to pregnancy (the hypothesized uteral maternal memory) none of which has been proven or substanciated in any form, yeah I'd call it rampant speculation.

It is no better off then noting that the sun appears to go around the earth.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #244 of 248
shetline when are you going to understand that empirical facts are just another form of liberal values? Unless it comes from God or Bush it's inherently untrustworthy.
post #245 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes. They're assigning a cause-effect relationship that just happens to conincide with everything the gay advocacy community wants.

Because after all, science should always oppose the gay agenda regardless of what the, what are they called?, facts are.
post #246 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
shetline when are you going to understand that empirical facts are just another form of liberal values? Unless it comes from God or Bush it's inherently untrustworthy.

Regardless of your demogoguery BRussell this empircal fact remains true from the article.

Quote:
"But the question of mechanism remains."

You have an outcome. You have no cause. ANYTHING that attempts to assign cause to the outcome is indeed speculation. Articles about this particular study specifically note that it made no attempt to determine cause and the author himself notes that he only attempts to isolate for environment.

However anyone who wants to be honest about good science has to admit that exclusion of one factor does not automatically merit inclusion of another factor. It isn't just bad logic, but profoundly bad science as well. This is especially so with statistical evidence as weak as he is presenting.

Lastly even when being willing to give him full credit for his work, there is still the presumption that his analysis properly isolated for environmental factors. It is still entirely possible to have had an environmental factor seperate from socialization related to birth order that could account for this outcome as well. If he didn't isolate for that, it would affect the results.

Quote:
But, he added, this needs to be looked at in context of the overall rate of homosexuality in men, which he suggested is about 3 percent. With several older brothers the rate may increase from 3 percent to 5 percent, he said, but that still means 95 percent of men with several older brothers are heterosexual.

We are talking about an increase of 2% with 95% of the incidences occuring normally (no causality). It is also not known how large the sample size was of brothers with several siblings. While he did interview and question 944 people it did not start off with all 944 people having several siblings. They were asked about the number of siblings, whether they lived with them or not, etc. Within the 944 there was a sub-sample of men who had several siblings. Until we know that number this 2% might be nothing more than statistical margin of error.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #247 of 248
This one study does not purport to be the be-all end-all of research on homosexuality. No study is. It's one more piece of the puzzle. But it addresses a well-known phenomenon in which men with older brothers have a higher rate of homosexuality.

From what I understand, this study's twist is that it looked at adopted kids as well as kids who lived with their biological parents, to see if that pattern occurs equally in both groups.

That's a very reasonable alternative hypothesis - it's possible that, just by hanging out with lots of males, you're more likely to become gay, and it has nothing to do with the pre-natal environment. So this study examined that possibility, but didn't find support for it. Now, there's other evidence, as well as just reasoning based on what we know about hormones and the pre-natal environment, that this pre-natal hypothesis is a good one. The surprise would have been if this study had found the opposite - that it was all about growing up a boy with older brothers.

As usual, the media present it as a breaking news story: Scientists discover that sexual orientation is biological! Well, that's bunk. It's just another study looking at one piece of this. But you and SDW are attacking these researchers and their study rather than the media interpretation of it, when it appears to be a perfectly legitimate and reasonable study to have conducted. It's that attacking of researchers and studies that don't fit one's agenda that has become the hallmark of contemporary American conservatism, whether it's global warming or evolution or this or a host of other areas.
post #248 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
This one study does not purport to be the be-all end-all of research on homosexuality. No study is. It's one more piece of the puzzle. But it addresses a well-known phenomenon in which men with older brothers have a higher rate of homosexuality.

From what I understand, this study's twist is that it looked at adopted kids as well as kids who lived with their biological parents, to see if that pattern occurs equally in both groups.

That's a very reasonable alternative hypothesis - it's possible that, just by hangning out with lots of males, you're more likely to become gay, and it has nothing to do with the pre-natal environment. So this study examined that possibility, but didn't find support for it. Now, there's other evidence, as well as just reasoning based on what we know about hormones and the pre-natal environment, that this pre-natal hypothesis is a good one. The surprise would have been if this study had found the opposite - that it was all about growing up a boy with older brothers.

As usual, the media present it as a breaking news story: Scientists discover that sexual orientation is biological! Well, that's bunk. It's just another study looking at one piece of this. But don't blame the scientists or the research itself for the media's interpretation of it. It's that attacking of researchers and studies - which you and SDW are doing - that don't fit one's agenda that has become the hallmark of contemporary American conservatism, whether it's global warming or evolution or this or a host of other areas.

Skepticism is not an attack. I've said nothing personal about the scientist or the subject that he studies. I've simply noted where flaws could be present in his research. You've pointed out one yourself here just casually. His research dealt specifically with socialization of males within the family and their respective roles. He did attempt to isolate between biological and non-biological brothers but did not attempt to isolate for any other external variable through his questioning.

The person could have an even larger number of extended male family members, female family members, etc. You mentioned that they could simple hang out or befriend a larger number of males. It is terrible to assume that just because 2% of the sample cannot be confined to the variables of siblings that there is no other external factor that could have caused it. The guy isolated for siblings but nothing else. When you have a variable that is normative 95% of the time and only shows deviance 2% of the time, you had better dig deeper befor drawing conclusions.

Speaking of hallmarks, you are demonstrating one yourself. It is the tendency of those who desire to disqualify others from discussion to grab one piece of evidence above all others and use it as an appeal to authority.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ignorance about what "harms children"