Pornography?

[Raphael]

Only in your opinion, many do not accept the authority of scripture.



It matters a great deal what psychology has to say. Unlike scripture psychology is based upon research and clinical experience and is therefore considerably more authoritative than the supposed revelation of scripture.

You mean those ones where over half of all Psychology research is found to be flawed?
http://www.nature.com/news/over-half...y-test-1.18248 <-- 2015 article

Source: Nature

Don’t trust everything you read in the psychology literature. In fact, two thirds of it should probably be distrusted.
....
According to the replicators' qualitative assessments, as previously reported by Nature, only 39 of the 100 replication attempts were successful.

© Copyright Original Source

http://www.livescience.com/27262-psy...uestioned.html <-- 2013 article

Source: Live Science

n the wake of several scandals in psychology research, scientists are asking themselves just how much of their research is valid.

In the past 10 years, dozens of studies in the psychology field have been retracted, and several high-profile studies have not stood up to scrutiny when outside researchers tried to replicate the research.

By selectively excluding study subjects or amending the experimental procedure after designing the study, researchers in the field may be subtly biasing studies to get more positive findings. And once research results are published, journals have little incentive to publish replication studies, which try to check the results.

That means the psychology literature may be littered with effects, or conclusions, that aren't real.

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

You mean those ones where over half of all Psychology research is found to be flawed?
http://www.nature.com/news/over-half...y-test-1.18248 <-- 2015 article

Source: Nature

Don’t trust everything you read in the psychology literature. In fact, two thirds of it should probably be distrusted.
....
According to the replicators' qualitative assessments, as previously reported by Nature, only 39 of the 100 replication attempts were successful.

© Copyright Original Source

http://www.livescience.com/27262-psy...uestioned.html <-- 2013 article

Source: Live Science

n the wake of several scandals in psychology research, scientists are asking themselves just how much of their research is valid.

In the past 10 years, dozens of studies in the psychology field have been retracted, and several high-profile studies have not stood up to scrutiny when outside researchers tried to replicate the research.

By selectively excluding study subjects or amending the experimental procedure after designing the study, researchers in the field may be subtly biasing studies to get more positive findings. And once research results are published, journals have little incentive to publish replication studies, which try to check the results.

That means the psychology literature may be littered with effects, or conclusions, that aren't real.

© Copyright Original Source

Nevertheless, these assessments are carried out by the psychologists themselves and are a part of the self-corrective procedure of all scientific endeavours. Correcting the accuracy of the methodology is what's required, not the wholesale dismissal of it.

Conversely, declaring that "scripture is the final authority" is an untested bald assertion...a faith-belief which is unsubstantiated by any research whatsoever.

[Psychic Missile]

Unless something causes general demonstrable harm I don't see the point in calling something harmful or bad.

[Roy]

Its not looking at women that's wrong, its lusting after them, by willful consent.

Since that is the end of pornography (its literally what pornography is), ...

Not all of it. You and everyone else in this thread so far have forgotten that pornography also includes pictures of males and of mixed males/females.

[rogue06]

Nevertheless, these assessments are carried out by the psychologists themselves and are a part of the self-corrective procedure of all scientific endeavours. Correcting the accuracy of the methodology is what's required, not the wholesale dismissal of it.

I don't think he is saying that we should simply dismiss it but rather that it should be taken with a large grain of salt (perhaps even a 5 lb. bag) since the evidence indicates that it gets it wrong well over half the time -- worse than merely flipping a coin to make a determination.

[Tassman]

I don't think he is saying that we should simply dismiss it but rather that it should be taken with a large grain of salt (perhaps even a 5 lb. bag) since the evidence indicates that it gets it wrong well over half the time -- worse than merely flipping a coin to make a determination.

But better than declaring that "scripture is the final authority" which is a faith-based belief unsubstantiated by any research whatsoever.

Furthermore, from Raphael’s link, “Researchers are creating new initiatives to encourage replication studies, improve research protocols and to make data more transparent”. So, to repeat, these findings are a part of the self-corrective procedure of all scientific endeavours.

[Adam]

I take it that the "self-correction" is still in its infancy.