Johnnie Cake Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) Quote JLHPROF: Where did you think such a study would be published - Out Magazine? The question isn't who published the study. The question is the validity of the study. The study could 100% prove homosexuality is a choice and it would still only be published in "religious" magazines and receive no press from liberal publications. And like I stated earlier...In your world...FoxNews is "Fair and Balanced" and MSNBC never spins a story from the left... Because the source of the funding nor organizations with the editorial power never drive the tone of a story...and Scott Lloyd doesn't write stories with a pro-LDS bent for the DesNews....because where an article is published or where a story is released has no impact on the spin of a story... I just find it interesting that I predicted that there was an agenda behind this story...and then when I discovered that that was the case everyone starts attacking me for pointing that reality out...I would have thought that the esteemed posters of this board would have instead joined me in questioning the studies findings...but I guess too many took pleasure in the so called studies findings because it supported their fixed opinions. I should also state that were this study published in an actual medical journal...my eyes would be wide open...but this organization has an admitted agenda...I just don't know why I'm the only one that is concerned about this and its biased implication on this study Edited August 23, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Gray Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Where did you think such a study would be published - Out Magazine? The question isn't who published the study. The question is the validity of the study. The study could 100% prove homosexuality is a choice and it would still only be published in "religious" magazines and receive no press from liberal publications. It's not really a study, though. It's an essay. 4
thesometimesaint Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: The problem is the transgender movement does blend the two together. So they say a man is a woman if he thinks is a woman and a woman is a man if she thinks she is a man. Then they want to change their names to reflect being the opposite sex and use the bathrooms that correspond to the opposite sex. There are many guys who lean more feminine and women who lean more masculine but they are not attempting to be the opposite sex. Generally I really don't care until they expect or require me to play along with their games. Bruce Jenner will always be Bruce to me. He can call himself by another name but to me, I will call him by no other name than Bruce. Transgender is a lot complex more than just "thinking" they are the opposite sex. Really; do you expect to post a policeman at every public toilet and check genitalia to see if it conforms to the persons birth certificate? Personally I prefer to call people by the name they want. 3
Johnnie Cake Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) I'm honestly shocked and surprised that Scott Lloyd isn't onboard with me on this...Scott don't you question sources when writing a story or do you merely take them at face value? and mfbukowski isn't it a bit much to call this a scientific report in your OP...its really just an opinion piece Edited August 23, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
JLHPROF Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 21 minutes ago, Gray said: It's not really a study, though. It's an essay. Fair enough. My concern was with the idea that a legitimate study could be considered invalid merely by the location of its publication. 1
Gray Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Fair enough. My concern was with the idea that a legitimate study could be considered invalid merely by the location of its publication. That's a legitimate point. The conservative political connections don't invalidate the essay, although they should make us a little cautious. Edited August 23, 2016 by Gray 1
Storm Rider Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, Gray said: That's a legitimate point. The conservative political connections don't invalidate the essay, although they should make us a little cautious. So does that mean we should be a little cautious with all sources or just the ones that appear to have conservative political connections? Do you know of any sources where a little caution is not warranted? 1
Gray Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 1 minute ago, Storm Rider said: So does that mean we should be a little cautious with all sources or just the ones that appear to have conservative political connections? Do you know of any sources where a little caution is not warranted? I think extra caution is warranted for any studies (although this is not a study) produced or interpreted by political advocacy groups, whether conservative or liberal. Of course we should always be a little skeptical, but more confidence is merited for studies published by non-political, academic journals. Studies published in academic journals can still be wrong, but standards are higher and there is less chance for egregious placing of thumbs on the scales. No political group will ever be publishing a study that disagrees with the ideology of its backers. 2
thesometimesaint Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: So does that mean we should be a little cautious with all sources or just the ones that appear to have conservative political connections? Do you know of any sources where a little caution is not warranted? Always be cautious of any source. However life is complicated and we normally don't stop our car to check out the sources when coming to every bridge. We just assume it is safe to do so. Science by definition is conservative, but not political. You have to be willing to demonstrate empirical evidence for your claim against people more than happy to prove you wrong.
ERayR Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 10 hours ago, smac97 said: Perhaps the fellow started a thread about this topic because he wants to discuss it and learn more about it? Is that a problem for you? Thanks, -Smac Of course it is. It would require more than a few snide ad-hominems.
ERayR Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Come on really? So you take FoxNews as Balanced I'm guessing also right? And MSNBC never spins a story... Im honestly gobsmacked that I appear to be the only one (at the moment) not taking this hook line and sinker. This board is filled with smart intelligent posters. I'm just surprised that no one else sees the obvious bias and the pushing of an agenda. Wow OOOOOOOH you are sooooooo smart. I don't know why I didn't see it before.
Storm Rider Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) It really is interesting to review what people say, like J-cake, and then compare it to reality. Perspective is everything. First, let's review the source of the actual article in The New Atlantis The Atlantis states about itself - "The New Atlantis is a nonpartisan publication; indeed, the subjects addressed in our pages often cut across existing political lines, forcing liberals and conservatives, progressives and libertarians, to revisit their guiding principles. We are published by a nonprofit organization that receives most of its support from private foundations and individual donors; we receive no funding from business or government sources." This appears to neutralize the attempt to poison the well by Mr. J-cake who did not apparently actually read anything, but noticed that the article was PUBLISHED, not written, not financially supported by, but who published the article and immediately took off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the actual article. What is interesting is the stated purpose of the magazine - "The New Atlantis is an effort to improve public understanding of the social, political, ethical, and policy implications of modern science and technology. Since the first issue of our quarterly journal in 2003, we have sought to make sense of the larger questions surrounding technology and human nature, and the practical questions of governing and regulating science — especially where the moral stakes are high and the political divides are deep." Now we get to the part of reliability - "Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender." Let's drill down on the these supposed experts. Quoting again - " Editor’s Note: Questions related to sexuality and gender bear on some of the most intimate and personal aspects of human life. In recent years they have also vexed American politics. We offer this report — written by Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, an epidemiologist trained in psychiatry, and Dr. Paul R. McHugh, arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century — in the hope of improving public understanding of these questions." So the reality is that we have an article written by qualified, non-partisan medical professionals that have reviewed the leading studies of our day to clarify what science does and does not support. Who knew reality could be so hard to see when a dumb fellow like me just reads a little. Edited August 23, 2016 by Storm Rider 3
thesometimesaint Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 Storm: From your source "especially where the moral stakes are high and the political divides are deep.". Science isn't concerned about morality. Individual scientists may or may not as is their choice. IE; Individual scientists may consider throwing someone off a cliff to be immoral, I certainly do. But science can only explain how that person falls, not the morality of doing so.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, SteveO said: Funny, I've never seen his name in writing even though I listen to him often on the drive home. He doesn't strike me as someone to do sensational pieces for ratings, so this is probably a more reputable study. He strikes me as conservative but responsibly so. He was a pleasant fellow to work with. We cooperated a time or two, sharing sources and such (the newspaper and TV station had the same owner). Several of us on staff were single and young and would go to lunch together often. He would sometimes come along. Edited August 23, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
mfbukowski Posted August 23, 2016 Author Posted August 23, 2016 4 hours ago, Teancum said: Well I simply asked a question. But it seems we all love science when it confirms our bias and are happy to dismiss it when it doesn't. in my experience and in what I read this seems more so in people with deeply held religious beleifs. What we are seeing right in this thread is people dismissing science for deeply held non-religious beliefs, apparently. 2
mfbukowski Posted August 23, 2016 Author Posted August 23, 2016 4 hours ago, Teancum said: No it is not a problem. I simply asked a question. Is that a problem for you? And the answer I got from the thread starter was a smug answer. Which fit well with your smug question 1
Storm Rider Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Storm: From your source "especially where the moral stakes are high and the political divides are deep.". Science isn't concerned about morality. Individual scientists may or may not as is their choice. IE; Individual scientists may consider throwing someone off a cliff to be immoral, I certainly do. But science can only explain how that person falls, not the morality of doing so. I think you are conflating the interest of the magazine in including the article and the motivation of the scientists doing the review of over 200 peer-reviewed studies. The experts here are not concerned about the moral implications or issues - their purpose is to review and explain what science has to say - not what "we" may want it to say or, more importantly, what the media wants science to say. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: I'm honestly shocked and surprised that Scott Lloyd isn't onboard with me on this...Scott don't you question sources when writing a story or do you merely take them at face value? I don't automatically dismiss them out-of-hand -- which is what you seem to be calling for. That's just as ignorant and irresponsible as failing to consider the source at all.
jkwilliams Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 I find it a little odd that anyone would look to scientific research to bolster a religious belief. The church's teachings about sex and gender are not based on science but on theology: only as married heterosexual couples (well, plus plural wives) can we inherit the celestial kingdom. Asking whether a scientific study "supports the church" is like asking for scientific support for the Atonement. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 11 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Like I said, pop media culture. I can tell you where it came from: All the President's Men, book and movie. Probably the movie, mainly, since catch-phrases are more apt to originate from movies than books.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I find it a little odd that anyone would look to scientific research to bolster a religious belief. The church's teachings about sex and gender are not based on science but on theology: only as married heterosexual couples (well, plus plural wives) can we inherit the celestial kingdom. Asking whether a scientific study "supports the church" is like asking for scientific support for the Atonement. We could compare it to apologetics. We can't prove our faith, but science can be useful in fending off attacks. There's not a thing wrong with doing that. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Which fit well with your smug question Off topic, but congratulations on reaching 10,000 rep points. You were almost there last I noticed; now you're well beyond. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Can there be any clearer example than this of an ad hominem attack? Report bad behavior. Don't derail threads with nannying. Identifying ad hominem attack is not nannying. It is pointing out a logical fallacy -- which is a solid debate technique.
jkwilliams Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: We could compare it to apologetics. We can't prove our faith, but science can be useful in fending off attacks. There's not a thing wrong with doing that. Of course there isn't. I just find the thread rather ironic given recent discussions.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: How can it possibly be "Ad Hominem" when the source is being questioned? Ad Hominem means "homo", the person, an argument against the person. Attacking a persons character, abilities or intentions is ad hominem. Attacking the intentions of anorganization cannot be ad hominem, by definition. I disagree. An irrelevant attack on the character of an entity is ad hominem, whether the entity be a person or an organized group of people.
Recommended Posts