Ireland recovering from Theocracy.

[Paprika]

I didn't exactly say that. We found an instance where 15 studies had used a single underlying data source (albeit one that developed over time).

Allow me to quote you on this point:

I am, however, slightly taken aback by the comment that 15 studies have been published on what is essentially the same data set (albeit it has evolved slightly over time as the children have aged). Obviously those 15 are not independent of each other, and should be considered a single longitudinal study.

I quite agree with you that the numbers have been inflated.

So if those 15 studies were counted as one, I guess that would leave "more than 86". That's still a rather high number.

How many times must I repeat that quantity is not quality?

While that is true, part of what makes them experts is their ability to analyze those studies better than you or I, due to having more knowledge of their own field and of the pros and cons of different methodologies...

Experts having better analytical skills with regards to the subject does not imply that all their arguments are correct, not least when ideological biases are very strong and the perennial pitfall of groupthink.

So if the experts all agree, that tells you pretty much all you need to know about how decisive and utterly overwhelming the evidence is.

If they do, and they do not (eg. Regnerus), and you have not shown any evidence that "the experts all agree". Of course, I'm now expecting a "no true credible expert"; please don't disappoint.

Individual scientific studies aren't themselves a particularly compelling source of proof. If there is a second study that found exactly the opposite, then that would entirely undermine the first one.

Indeed, quantity of studies is essential to support a conclusion. But as above, quantity does not imply quality; numbers alone is not the only relevant factor.

The review articles in the field on the topic will be better than anything I can write. You should read those if you want to know more. The argument is not that the experts generally agree, it's that the experts appear to universally agree, and there's a world of difference between those two things. Decent evidence pointing overall in one direction will cause general expert agreement in any given scientific field.

I've read a review article by Loren Marks. The abstract goes:

In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting. This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and 59 published studies cited by APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1) homogenous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group characteristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children’s outcomes studied, (6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.

Multiple scientific organisations testifying that there is no disagreement is another kettle of fish entirely, and indicates absolutely crushing evidence.

Or the completely evident massive progressive ideological bias.

Your fundamental driving force for all this seems to be your utterly unproven conviction

The driving force hardly matters, though I thank you for taking the trouble to address it. My objections and criticism are logically independent of the driving force or conviction, so I see no need to address it in this space, not least because it avoids the pitfall of the genetic fallacy.

[Starlight]

If you can't actually test for the idea that many children of non-gay parents are, in fact, closeted, then why are you so confident in your theory?

They come out later in life. So asking them later in life they can tell the researcher that they are gay and what age they came out at. It's thus possible to observe a trend that gay children of heterosexual parents tend to come out at a later age than the gay children of gay parents.

Can you cite the research you're thinking of that offers these conclusions (that children of gay parents grow out of saying they're gay at a later age, and that most studies no longer ask children of gay parents if they are gay)?

You appear to have misunderstood the first sentence of my second paragraph, which upon rereading it I can see was a bit ambiguous. I was absolutely not saying that "children of gay parents grow out of saying they're gay at a later age".

I was saying that people who are gay are slower to admit it to themselves and others if they are in an unsupportive environment. Hence any gay children being raised by gay parents are likely to come out sooner than gay children being raised by straight parents. So, while (we can presume) the vast majority of gay people will have come out as gay by the age of 70 or so, at the age of 18 only some of them will have come out as gay. The ones that will have come out at a younger age will mostly have been those who were in environments where they felt more comfortable coming out. Offhand I can't remember where I read the discussion of this.

[Adrift]

Adrift,

It's a fairly well-known phenomena that gay children will come out of the closet sooner if they feel they are in a supportive environment. Also, obviously, kids will think about their own sexual orientation earlier in life if someone close to them is gay. For these reasons any gay children of same-sex parents are likely to come out at a younger age on average than the children of opposite sex parents. This tends to yield false-positives in studies that try to determine if the children of same-sex parents are more likely to be gay. Because if the study asks all the kids at age 18 if they are gay or not (or asks their parents), their numbers will be skewed as a result of a lot of the kids still being in the closet. What you ideally would want to know is how many are actually gay, not how many tell you they're gay. But that's not something you can really test for - short of coming back decades later and hoping for truthful answers at that point.

If you can't actually test for the idea that many children of non-gay parents are, in fact, closeted, then why are you so confident in your theory? Who told you this theory?

The general finding has been that the children of gay parents do not seem more likely to actually be gay - if the question is asked much later in their lives then there appear to be no differences between the two groups. However the gay children of gay parents definitely admit to being gay at a younger age, on average, which is hardly surprising. For this reason most studies of same-sex parenting done these days tend to no longer bother to ask such questions of the children or their parents because it's known that the answers given are false data.

Can you cite the research you're thinking of that offers these conclusions (that children of gay parents grow out of saying they're gay at a later age, and that most studies no longer ask children of gay parents if they are gay)?

[Starlight]

As noted by Starlight the number has been vastly inflated.

I didn't exactly say that. We found an instance where 15 studies had used a single underlying data source (albeit one that developed over time).

The court submission from the scientific organisations cites this article by Lamb as being a definitive review (of reviews) of all research to date on factors affecting childhood development in general, and in the article he says that his summary represents the conclusions of more than 1000 individual studies on childhood development over the last 50 years. In that, he notes there have been "more than 100" articles published on the subject of same-sex parenting. So if those 15 studies were counted as one, I guess that would leave "more than 86". That's still a rather high number.

The consensus of the experts alone means little, because if it is in any way accurate it should be founded on the evidence, the studies.

While that is true, part of what makes them experts is their ability to analyze those studies better than you or I, due to having more knowledge of their own field and of the pros and cons of different methodologies. While I am a scientist and rate my own ability to analyze and criticize any given scientific study vastly vastly above that of the ability of the average person, the fact remains that sociology isn't my field of expertise and I read the research in that field as a mere hobby and a curious person, not as an expert. You might say to me "why did they do it that way?" and I may well not know the answer, but there may well be a really good answer despite me not knowing what it is. A person with expert knowledge in the field will know the common pitfalls and mistakes and know what to look out for, and so they are much more able to analyze the research than me.

I know from firsthand experience what goes in to reaching scientific consensuses. The fact is that humans tend to like to all have different takes on an issue and different opinions, and usually each individual scientist will have their own pet theory that they are determined to prove is right. So the default for any scientific topic is utter disagreement and complete divergence of views. Once you get a good amount of evidence assembled all pointing in the same direction, most people will come to generally hold to the well-evidenced view, but you'll still get a variety of researchers who push their own alternative theories. It takes absolutely crushing and overwhelming evidence to get absolute uniformity of opinion among the experts. So if the experts all agree, that tells you pretty much all you need to know about how decisive and utterly overwhelming the evidence is.

To me, the fact that the experts all agree is far more convincingly decisive than it would be if I sat down and read through 10 studies that I thought looked pretty compelling. Because I'd know that while I might think whatever studies I was reading looked compelling, that there might in fact be some fatal flaws that undermined them which I was overlooking because I am not an expert in the field and don't necessarily know everything to look for or check for. Or it might be the case that if I knew another well-established result in the field, then I would know that the study's findings could be easily explained with reference to that standard result, or I might know that the authors were attributing the causality in the wrong direction etc.

Individual scientific studies aren't themselves a particularly compelling source of proof. If there is a second study that found exactly the opposite, then that would entirely undermine the first one. So what's actually important is to know about the overall state of the field of research, and know whether such each and opposite studies exist or not, and not to trust in any arbitrary particular study. Studies become compelling only in the aggregate - when repeated studies, regardless of the author or location, point in a consistent direction. I would generally advise anyone doing any science to never believe anything just because of one study, no matter how good that study appears to have been. Instead it's much better to read experts explaining about the overall state of research in the field. (That's what I simply didn't understand about Adrift's post earlier... he posted links to 6 mostly shoddy-looking studies on various different topics, all of which try to claim conclusions that are totally at odds with the repeated findings of a large number of other studies in their own field.)

Hence the main examination should be the studies and the arguments from the studies, not merely "the experts [generally] agree!"

The review articles in the field on the topic will be better than anything I can write. You should read those if you want to know more. The argument is not that the experts generally agree, it's that the experts appear to universally agree, and there's a world of difference between those two things. Decent evidence pointing overall in one direction will cause general expert agreement in any given scientific field. Multiple scientific organisations testifying that there is no disagreement is another kettle of fish entirely, and indicates absolutely crushing evidence. That turns out in practice to be "more than 100" studies that all found the same result. And while you've found various reasons for thinking twice about or questioning the quality of a few of these, and seem to personally prefer the proportionally representative methodology over a snowball methodology, you've given no reasons for doubting the studies that were conducted using your preferred methodology.

Your fundamental driving force for all this seems to be your utterly unproven conviction that stereotypical gendered roles in parenting have a significant positive effect on child development. You have presented no empirical evidence whatsoever to support that conviction. In Lamb's summary of the factors affecting childhood development in general, he says such gender roles have proven not to be relevant:

Many studies have pointed to differences between the ways in which mothers and fathers interact with their children; they indicate that, on average, men’s patterns of interaction are dominated by a more boisterous, playful, unpredictable interaction, while women’s patterns are more soothing, containing, and restrictive. However, these differences do not apply across the board to all men or to all women even within specific cultures, and there are well documented cultural differences in the extent to which men and women conform to these patterns of behavior, with studies in a large number of cultures not revealing the distinctive sex-typed patterns at issue. More importantly, there is no evidence that these sex differences in parental behavior have any implications for children’s adjustment, or that adjustment is affected in any way when parents do not assume traditional sex-typed parenting styles...
There is also no empirical support for the notion that the presence of both male and female role models in the home enhances the adjustment of children and adolescents... Society is replete with role models from whom children and adolescents can learn about socially prescribed male and female roles, and there is little evidence that gender-typed models within the family are especially influential so far as children’s adjustment is concerned.

Likewise in his discussion of single parents (who obviously can't fulfill the stereotypical gender roles of both parents) he discusses how the empirical research has shown that the reasons 1-parent families do worse have nothing to do with a child needing two parents, but are instead are about whether the child is exposed to an acrimonious divorce process and whether the single parent has the financial resources to sufficiently provide for the child. The closest parental gender roles ever come to affecting anything, is that children of gender role-conforming parents are more likely to conform to stereotypical social gender roles and follow career paths that are deemed socially 'appropriate' to their gender. (Apparently if we want more female scientists and doctors, egalitarian parenting is the way to do it...)

[Paprika]

the number of studies (and here we're not talking about NLLFS v. general population)

As noted by Starlight the number has been vastly inflated. As I have noted numbers alone do not indicate quality.

the existence of multiple "gold-standard" studies and meta-reviews

"Gold-standard", as far as we know, only in terms of using nationally representative sampling. Which doesn't imply that the rest of the methodology is "gold-standard" - (cf. the criticism of Regenerus, Allen, etc.)

and the general consensus of experts all weigh on the other side's favor. Obviously, in a debate forum, there is a burden to demonstrate the validity of these studies rather than simply saying they exist. However, on a debate forum, there is also a burden to refute on those who, knowing of the studies' existence, maintain their dissent.

The consensus of the experts alone means little, because if it is in any way accurate it should be founded on the evidence, the studies. Hence the main examination should be the studies and the arguments from the studies, not merely "the experts [generally] agree!"

Now assuredly there is burden on both sides. Starlight, however, has chosen not to take on his burden, which is why I have been heavily critical of his approach.

It's not enough to suggest that the studies are methodologically flawed; it must be shown.

I have highlighted pertinent concerns: eg. snowball sampling with invalid comparison to national averages, as well as low sample size. Starlight's response has been, after failing to poke holes in my criticism, to just keep playing the 'consensus' cards as if that mattered when the evidential weight of the consensuses is precisely in question.

[Sam]

On the contrary, if you don't argue for the stance shared by the experts (within such a forum context) what you merely have is 'this is what the experts say, and we should blindly have faith in them'.


Well, I'm waiting for you to show that they are meritorious.


I have drawn my criticism of the so-called consensus of the "dozens" of studies precisely from the document by the experts that you link. The difference, of course, is that I expose their whitewashing of the non-gold standard studies and draw attention to the weaknesses what they have attempted to minimise.

As I wrote, there's work for both parties; the "side" that disputes these studies on the basis of maintaining that opposite-sex partners have an inherent advantage over same-sex partners do have the burden of looking at the studies and providing a compelling reason to dismiss them. While we should not have blind faith in such studies, the number of studies (and here we're not talking about NLLFS v. general population), the existence of multiple "gold-standard" studies and meta-reviews, and the general consensus of experts all weigh on the other side's favor. Obviously, in a debate forum, there is a burden to demonstrate the validity of these studies rather than simply saying they exist. However, on a debate forum, there is also a burden to refute on those who, knowing of the studies' existence, maintain their dissent.

It's not enough to suggest that the studies are methodologically flawed; it must be shown.

[Paprika]

It's not generally on those who accept the consensus of anthropocentric global warming to "back up" the experts

On the contrary, if you don't argue for the stance shared by the experts (within such a forum context) what you merely have is 'this is what the experts say, and we should blindly have faith in them'.

it must be shown that the "gold-standard" studies are flawed

Well, I'm waiting for you to show that they are meritorious.

or that the consensus opinion of studies does not indeed lead to the same general conclusion.

I have drawn my criticism of the so-called consensus of the "dozens" of studies precisely from the document by the experts that you link. The difference, of course, is that I expose their whitewashing of the non-gold standard studies and draw attention to the weaknesses what they have attempted to minimise.

[Sam]

It's a pretty elementary observation that most academics in the soft sciences are progressives. And it is inaccurate to portray the statements as being signed and agreed by all the experts in the fields.


As I've already pointed out, quantity is not a substitute for quality. So: to just discuss one main problem with the large majority of the "dozens and dozens" of studies: most of them because of their snowball sampling are hardly representative; these shortcomings making broad generalizations impossible based on these studies.

Again, you've got to stop playing the consensus cards - repeatedly claiming that the consensuses settle the issue - especially when the meaning and evidentiary weight of the consensuses is precisely what is being called into question.

While it remains our burden to at least demonstrate that some of the studies (preferably "gold-standard") are meritorious (as the proof is in the pudding is in the eating), it remains the case the expert consensus opinion does agree with our position. It is entirely appropriate for non-experts to rely on the consensus view of experts, even if they do not or cannot deal with the evidence themselves. Thus, I expect all responsible parents to vaccinate their children, regardless of whether they can understand immunology.

So while our side does indeed carry a burden, the burden is far greater for the other side; it must be shown that the "gold-standard" studies are flawed or that the consensus opinion of studies does not indeed lead to the same general conclusion. It's not generally on those who accept the consensus of anthropocentric global warming to "back up" the experts -- it's on those who reject the expert consensus to demonstrate why the experts are wrong.

Work for both sides, in other words.

[Paprika]

Er... are you alleging ideological bias among all experts across 8 or so different disciplines and organisations? That's quite some conspiracy.

It's a pretty elementary observation that most academics in the soft sciences are progressives. And it is inaccurate to portray the statements as being signed and agreed by all the experts in the fields.

It boils down to all the studies showing the same thing. Dozens and dozens and dozens of studies have been done. They all agree: Same sex parents are just as good as opposite sex parents.

As I've already pointed out, quantity is not a substitute for quality. So: to just discuss one main problem with the large majority of the "dozens and dozens" of studies: most of them because of their snowball sampling are hardly representative; these shortcomings making broad generalizations impossible based on these studies.

Again, you've got to stop playing the consensus cards - repeatedly claiming that the consensuses settle the issue - especially when the meaning and evidentiary weight of the consensuses is precisely what is being called into question.

[Starlight]

It is you who have presented no argument besides "look at the consensus of the studies! look at the consensus of all the ideologically biased 'credible experts'!"

Er... are you alleging ideological bias among all experts across 8 or so different disciplines and organisations? That's quite some conspiracy.

It boils down to all the studies showing the same thing. Dozens and dozens and dozens of studies have been done. They all agree: Same sex parents are just as good as opposite sex parents. The only studies that disagree are so obviously epicly flawed that that can't be taken seriously - Regnarus' deliberate fraud is well-known and Allen's failure to control for divorce in the sample group is simply eye-roll worthy and someone else usefully reanalyzed Allen's data and controlled for divorce and subsequently found that the sexuality of the parents had no effect on the children. So 100% of the credible evidence points to the same conclusion. And it's been studied over and over and over and over again, for decades and decades. Hence all the experts are sure.

And, as I mentioned before, experts have been studying childhood development for the past hundred years. They know what makes for good parenting in general. It's (1) stability, (2) love, (3) resources. That's what all the studies have shown over and over. Other things don't matter. The idea that parental gender roles are important is an imaginative view that has no scientific support.

[Sam]

Which was why I was hoping that Sam would refer to studies that controlled or eliminated this variable (eg adoption at birth). Ah well, I suppose I'll have to go look for it myself.

I wish I could recall the name ... trying to think of any keywords beside one year and "birth parents" but coming up short. It's unlikely I kept a copy in my documents drive but I will check tomorrow.

[Paprika]

Which boils down to basically a repeat of the finding that family stability matters.

Which was why I was hoping that Sam would refer to studies that controlled or eliminated this variable (eg adoption at birth). Ah well, I suppose I'll have to go look for it myself.

[Paprika]

Yes I'm spotting that in your responses. Why listen to the unanimous consensus of all relevant groups of scientific professionals when instead you can engage in some good old outright science-denial due to your ideological biases?

If you make an argument I'm happy to deal with it.

I have engaged with the resources produced by Sam and yourself, pointing out the flaws in the 'consensus' by all the studies and arguing that it is hardly founded on good evidence and you need much more work to establish it instead of blithely stating it exists, all the scholars agree, and that settles the matter.

It is you who have presented no argument besides "look at the consensus of the studies! look at the consensus of all the ideologically biased 'credible experts'!"

[Paprika]

Yes I'm spotting that in your responses. Why listen to the unanimous consensus of all relevant groups of scientific professionals when instead you can engage in some good old outright science-denial due to your ideological biases?

If you make an argument I'm happy to deal with it.

I have engaged with the resources produced by Sam and yourself, pointing out the flaws in the 'consensus' by all the studies and arguing that it is hardly founded on good evidence and you need much more work to establish it instead of blithely stating it exists, all the scholars agree, and that settles the matter.

It is you who have presented no argument besides "look at the consensus of the studies! look at the consensus of all the ideologically biased 'credible experts'!"

[Starlight]

Dealing with YEC is fun ... until it isn't. Then one moves to greener pastures (i.e., Civics).

Yes, well, I've been finding myself feeling sorry for us both for that reason on a regular basis.