Something that perplexes me about homosexuality

[Cow Poke]

Isn't that Mrs. Pitchard our 5th grade teacher? Of course we had a different name for her back then. I remember Mom sending flowers to the rest home she was staying in after her nervous breakdown half way through the year.

Remember her OTHER favorite expression, besides "Do you have anything of substance to say?"

With that same loving look, "Do you like the way you're put together?"

[Jichard]

It seems to me that an article is not scientific evidence. In the usual modern sense, only actual, direct observations are scientific evidence. An article contains words/communication, not observations.

What in the world...

Of course scientific papers contain observations.

But it can contain someone's testimony asserting what they observed. How to judge whether someone's testimony is reliable is a different question.

No, not even close. For example, if you were in court, the court would distinguish between the scientific evidence presented in a scientific paper as opposed to witness' testimony. The former is usually given more credence than the latter.

Does the "Results" section of an article contain testimony of scientific evidence? That seems unlikely. In my experience, normally an author is expected to not present new evidence in the "Results" section. Testimony of raw scientific evidence should come in the preceding sections. The results are summaries of the preceding testimony and/or conclusions/calculations the author drew from it.

I... what... Have you ever read a scientific paper? Have any of the people Amenning your post ever read a scientific paper? Am I being punked?

Here's a standard way in which scientific papers are organized:

Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion (or "Consclusion")
References

Here's an example: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/....ajp.162.2.361
The scientific evidence is presented in the Results section. The Discussion section is where you bring up your conclusions. I really don't know why you think otherwise.

It does not seem to me to be hypocritical for someone to give varying degrees of credence to various scientific claims. The very nature of empirical science means that its claims are never 100% certain, and there is always room for skepticism and doubt.

There's irrational skepticism and unwarranted doubt.

Different claims may warrant different levels of skepticism. And for any one of the claims X, because it lacks 100% certainty, any two reasonable people can and usually do give X different amount of credence.

Your claim is fallacious; it's like saying "since the number is less than 100%, than any two people can give any different number they want". Of course, that isn't the case; for example: in a case where only one number is justified. To build on this point: often the scientific evidence is so strong, than giving less credence (say, below 95%) is simply irrational and unwarranted, given the evidence. So, for example even though it's not 100% certain that puppies exist, someone who seriously doubted that puppies exist (ex: they were less than 90% sure that puppies exist) is being irrational given the evidence presented, and displaying unwarranted doubt.

I often see people suggest that anyone who does not assent to all scientific claims is "anti-science" or a hypocrite.

I believe you've never seen anyone suggest that. Ever. Instead, what you most likely saw was someone being labelled "anti-science" because they showed unwarranted doubt in a scientific claim

And that to question a particular claim is to attack or deny "Science". But such people are being unreasonable, and are espousing a position contrary to the inherent nature of empirical science. Should they therefore be considered anti-science?

What you wrote has nothing to do with the "the inherent nature of empirical science".

[Jichard]

Here's a hint for you: Opinion polls and social studies are not "scientific evidence" and that is what you regularly toss out.

Wrong again.


First, I doubt you have any idea what I actually "toss out", since I doubt you've read any of the studies I've mentioned.


Second, they are scientific evidence for the claims they support. For example, they serve as evidence for various explanations in experimental psychology, experimental economics, and so on. So, for instance, if one's psychological model predicts that people should have X views under C conditions, while a different psychological model predicts that people will have Y views under C conditions, than a survey can help in determining which of those models are more likely to be right or wrong. That's standard hypothesis-testing, and nothing prevents this from being done is social science research. Hence social scientists successfully doing it for decades. You seem to be another one of those people who don't realize that the social sciences are sciences. Congratulations; the scientific community disagrees with you and knows better. That's why we have scientific journals for this sort of thing. Unless, of ccourse, you think that Science, Nature, PNAS, etc. are crackpot places that don't publish scientific evidence.

But let me dumb it down for your further. Here's a Wikipedia definition of "scientific evidence" for you; hopefully, you'll be able to understand it:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I've already explained to you how opinion polls and surveys meet that definition. For example, there are usual scientific contrls in place for surveys, the surveys are subject to statistical analysis, the results of the surveys can be used to support or reject a given scientific hypothesis or model, and so on. You've provided no reason that they don't qualify as evidence. And I doubt that you even could.

And the funny thing is, you actually believe it, and think you are smarter than people who have religion.

You're making stuff up; I never claimed to be smarter than religious people nor do I think that. I really don't know why so many of you Christians feel the need to lie about others. It's really sad.

News Flash: religion is not opposed to science.

Never claimed they were opposed. So again, I don't know why you make stuff up. Particular forms of religion are opposed to science; I never claimed (and have never hough) that all religion is opposed to science.

In fact, science was invented by religious people to help explain the universe, because God is a logical being.

Again, another false claim. Science was not invented by religious people, for that reason. I also suggest that you familiarize yourself with occasionalism. There were plenty of non-religious people engaged in science, and there were plenty of reason for doing science, that have nothing to do with God.

Don't worry, we got ya pegged:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11480[/ATTACH]

Trolling.

Once you're able to discuss science in a serious, informed way, let me know.

[Jichard]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11501[/ATTACH]


I love it when he says this!

Why are liberals always so GRUMPY!!!!!

Ask youself:

I don't care what you wrote. I honestly sincerely don't care what you think.

This is the kind of nonsense I don't want in the thread. You're trying to make this something it's not.

As thread starter, I'm going to ask you to stop disrupting the thread and leave.

You sure can be a grumpy old man.

[Jichard]

You know, watching JerkTard try to paint his opposition with such a broad brush is always entertaining to watch, especially when he's showing how anti science he truly is (IE a 'study' that tries to make sweeping claims about my own sexuality, that I know to be false, needs to be accepted as 'science' even though it tries to make broad and sweeping claims about billions of people).

The study made no claims about your own sexuality. You'd know that if you bothered to read the study.

Personally, I do accept evolution and so do several 'conservative Christians', so there goes one of your arguments down the tubes.

And you claim that condoms ae useless against HPV and herpes, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, just like many of other socially conservative Christians (like Teal). So you actually illustrate my point quite well.

Do tell JerkTard, do you actually know what your opponents here believe or do try to paint all of those, who don't get on their hands and knees and bow before you, as being anti science because your black/white fundy atheist brain is incapable of finding shades beyond black/white?

Not my fault you're opposed to scientific evidence for ideological reasons.

[mossrose]

J, you have derailed this thread beyond recognition. Please take your discussions about scientific studies elsewhere.

[Jichard]

J, you have derailed this thread beyond recognition. Please take your discussions about scientific studies elsewhere.

;)

And if it weren't for me, you'd be here all by yourself, cause not many people think you're even worth talking to.

[lilpixieofterror]

The study made no claims about your own sexuality. You'd know that if you bothered to read the study.

1. Study makes sweeping claims about female sexuality.
2. I am a female.



As always JerkTard opens his mouth and lets stupidity fall out of it.

And you claim that condoms ae useless against HPV and herpes, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, just like many of other socially conservative Christians (like Teal). So you actually illustrate my point quite well.

Nope, didn't claim that at all moron. What I actually claimed is that the term 'useless' doesn't mean what you are trying to warp it to mean. So are you too stupid to read definitions or did you just lie about what I said and hope I don't know what my own words are?

Not my fault you're opposed to scientific evidence for ideological reasons.

More drooling stupidity! What is my 'ideological reasons' sweety? You mean I dared to READ a dictionary and actually used definitions correctly instead of leaving out what the full definition says and pretending it said something it didn't say, at all?

[Sparko]

Wrong again.


First, I doubt you have any idea what I actually "toss out", since I doubt you've read any of the studies I've mentioned.


Second, they are scientific evidence for the claims they support. For example, they serve as evidence for various explanations in experimental psychology, experimental economics, and so on. So, for instance, if one's psychological model predicts that people should have X views under C conditions, while a different psychological model predicts that people will have Y views under C conditions, than a survey can help in determining which of those models are more likely to be right or wrong. That's standard hypothesis-testing, and nothing prevents this from being done is social science research. Hence social scientists successfully doing it for decades. You seem to be another one of those people who don't realize that the social sciences are sciences. Congratulations; the scientific community disagrees with you and knows better. That's why we have scientific journals for this sort of thing. Unless, of ccourse, you think that Science, Nature, PNAS, etc. are crackpot places that don't publish scientific evidence.

But let me dumb it down for your further. Here's a Wikipedia definition of "scientific evidence" for you; hopefully, you'll be able to understand it:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I've already explained to you how opinion polls and surveys meet that definition. For example, there are usual scientific contrls in place for surveys, the surveys are subject to statistical analysis, the results of the surveys can be used to support or reject a given scientific hypothesis or model, and so on. You've provided no reason that they don't qualify as evidence. And I doubt that you even could.



You're making stuff up; I never claimed to be smarter than religious people nor do I think that. I really don't know why so many of you Christians feel the need to lie about others. It's really sad.



Never claimed they were opposed. So again, I don't know why you make stuff up. Particular forms of religion are opposed to science; I never claimed (and have never hough) that all religion is opposed to science.



Again, another false claim. Science was not invented by religious people, for that reason. I also suggest that you familiarize yourself with occasionalism. There were plenty of non-religious people engaged in science, and there were plenty of reason for doing science, that have nothing to do with God.



Trolling.

Once you're able to discuss science in a serious, informed way, let me know.

Yeah, we know the type of troll you are.

Jichard.jpg

[Catholicity]

Science definition: (n) the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientific Method For Making Natural Observations:
1) Purpose
2)Research
3) Hypothesis
4)Experiment
5)Analysis
6)Conclusion

Definition of Statisitics: (n) the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.


Jichard's definition of science: Statistics is always conclusive and evident of everything no matter how small, skewed or biased the data. Statistics is perfect. Statistics trumps all and statistics is science.

Real world: Wrong. Statistics is data collection which can be useful in the study of the natural world.


Expected Jichard response: "You just have a contempt for science"

What I'm really thinking: "No dummy, I'm just against arrogant blowhards who redefine terms to fit definitions so they don't have to think beyond their own concept of how the world should be."

[Sparko]

Jichard thinks "Science" is a magical incantation he invokes to ward off religion.

[Catholicity]

Jichard thinks "Science" is a magical incantation he invokes to ward off religion.

I predict he will call both of us trolls.

[Cow Poke]

I predict he will call both of us trolls.

I predict he will declare you have nothing of substance to add.

[Sparko]

I predict he will declare you have nothing of substance to add.

I predict, "Science!!!"

[mossrose]

I predict he won't call anybody in this thread anything, since I've asked him to leave.