[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’m not touching the gay marriage debate with a ten foot pole. I’m speaking strictly without regards to your political view.[/quote]
I’ve only discussed science as the best toolset we have for understanding objective reality. Are you saying you disagree with this and if so, why?
Regarding the question of gay marriage, I’ve already deferred to the Gay Agenda thread to avoid further derailing here.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In other words every method including the sacred scientific one requires a significant component of faith somewhere in the equation because we, as a specie, are not in possession of comprehensive knowledge of anything. A whole host of assumptions based on probability which itself is the product of those very assumptions falls prey to the same charges as does theistic religious conviction.[/quote]
The difference is that science delivers objective results, and supernatural religious beliefs do not. You can test and objectively confirm scientific hypotheses, but you cannot test and objectively confirm religious hypotheses.
Basing your views of reality on supernatural unconfirmable beliefs is very different from basing your views on objective observable facts.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Science attempts to find the truth. You have decided the truth, and are trying to either find, or make science fit your truth. [/quote]
Can you give me an example of this?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
In other words every method including the sacred scientific one requires a significant component of faith somewhere in the equation because we, as a specie, are not in possession of comprehensive knowledge of anything. A whole host of assumptions based on probability which itself is the product of those very assumptions falls prey to the same charges as does theistic religious conviction.
The difference is that science delivers objective results, and supernatural religious beliefs do not. You can test and objectively confirm scientific hypotheses, but you cannot test and objectively confirm religious hypotheses.
Basing your views of reality on supernatural unconfirmable beliefs is very different from basing your views on objective observable facts.[/quote]
OK
[quote]lixy wrote:
McCain Seen as Less Likely to Bring Change, Poll Finds
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but…
Lixy FTW!!
…in a continued desperate attempt to keep this thread on topic. Damn, who’da thunk? 
fellas, what say we return to the topic at hand: namely, the debates and possible outcomes. Please? If you all want to continue to debate the merits of the scientific method, do it in another thread and copy/paste the posts from here.
Fair enough, I’ll defer further comments on science to another thread.
It doesn’t surprise me that McCain is seen as less likely to produce change. Despite his reputation for being a maverick, when you look at his voting record and the positions he is advocating, you don’t see a lot of change from the current regime.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If you become wiser with age, why would most elderly people vote democrat until recently?[/quote]
Because the democrats, or liberals I should say, weren’t so radical in their views until recently. The elderly can no longer imbibe their ideology.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I think it may have to do with the morals people have, and how those morals evolve over time. Older people tend to be more socially conservative (pro life, anti-gay, etc.) than younger and more educated people.[/quote]
So you are saying young college grads are more educated than older people? What is your basis for this argument? Do you hear yourself?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I think education is a good innoculation against brainwashing, because you are given the tools to think for yourself. It’s people that aren’t educated, especially those raised in a fundamentalist absolutist belief system, that seem more likely to stay within the local sandbox.[/quote]
On the contrary, I think college is increasingly liberal and plays a big role in the shaping of the students worldview. Everyone has biases, I dont care how educated they are. Moreover, if the fundies are right, why on earth would they leave the “sandbox”? \
It is your right to have the opinion that the fundies are wrong, but you somehow make the leap here to believe that many conservatives are uneducated fundamentalist that are brainwashed into their values and beliefs, while on the other hand, liberal college students think “outside the box”. Your opnions are quite elitist like much of the out of touch liberal base.
Edit: For good measure: “It isnt that our liberal friends are ignorant, its that they know so much that isnt so.” -Ronald Reagan
I didnt know forlife had already been owned for 3 pages about these things before my post above, or I might have forgone posting it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Science attempts to find the truth. You have decided the truth, and are trying to either find, or make science fit your truth.
Can you give me an example of this? [/quote]
Gee, take a short leave the political forum, and what happens when I come back? I end up with homework.
OK, but your homework is to tell us exactly what those 1,000 federal benefits are that you keep mentioning. A link would be fine, but I want a full list of all 1,000 benefits.
Anyway, here is just one item that is your “proof”:
I attempted to find the full article, but was left with only this abstract.
But here is the full abstract, which you have presented:
To determine the association between domestic partnership status and risk behaviors for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection, we analyzed data from a population-based interviewer-administered telephone survey of 2,881 gay men in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York and Chicago conducted in November 1996 to February 1998. Men in domestic partnerships had a statistically significantly lower prevalence of multiple partnerships, “one-night stands,” and unprotected anal intercourse with a non-primary partner than either men with steady partners not identified as domestic partners or men without a steady partner. These findings were independent of age. Men in domestic partnerships had decreased risk behaviors for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection, suggesting but not proving, that conferring legal status to same-sex unions might decrease sexual risk behavior.
First off, this is a phone survey, meaning they called people up and asked if they were faithful to their partner. Who the hell is going to tell the truth when they haven’t? (OK, apparently some.)
That being said, I do believe people in “stable” relationships are less likely to “cheat”.
Next, since it wasn’t until 1999 that the first statewide domestic partnership laws came into effect, these were people without even State laws on their side, and none had Federal laws on their side.
So it was not the legal status, but the relationship itself that conferred the benefits, contrary to your claims.
On another note, the Journal in question, “The Journal of Homosexuality” has had a variety of complaints, specifically about their apparent defending of pedophilia.
As an example:
[i]1: J Homosex. 1990;20(1-2):275-95.Links
The study of intergenerational intimacy in North America: beyond politics and pedophilia.
Jones GP.
Institute for the Study of Women and Men in Society, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Intergenerational intimacy, social as well as sexual, has been studied in the United States and abroad for some time. In recent years the general trend has been to label such behavior "child sexual abuse." Interest in this type of abuse has generated a considerable amount of more or less scientific literature, some of which seems to have been produced in a "rush to judgment" attempt to build a "professional" literature that supports popular beliefs. This tradition of child-abuse-defined literature, along with the work of investigative and helping agencies which some refer to as a "child abuse industry," has fostered a one-sided, simplistic picture of intergenerational intimacy. A close look at the empirical studies in this tradition reveals flaws associated with two problems: the studies nearly always (1) maintain a narrow focus on sexual contact, and (2) proceed from the related basic assumption that sexual contact in intergenerational relationships by definition constitutes abuse. While sexual abuse certainly occurs, those who apply this assumption to all situations are ignoring empirical findings that show otherwise. Research outside the "child sexual abuse" tradition reveals a broader range of intergenerational relationships outside the family, including a number of aspects which typically are not seen when the focus is on the sexual. Some studies show clearly that even when sexual contact is involved, negative outcomes are not inevitable. This indicates the need for a much broader approach. Further research in North American society and in other cultures would help us to understand more accurately the diversity and possible benefits of intergenerational intimacy.[/i]
I know the gay community has been fighting against the idea of connecting pedophilia with homosexuality, and yet this Journal seems to be setting that back. (intergenerational intimacy? OMFG!)
Anyway, what we have here is a “study”, from a Journal with questionable integrity, that hopes people are telling the truth, concluding that people, without legal status, are less likely to sleep around.
And the attempt to use this to show how legal status affects sexual promiscuity is quite faulty.
Now about those 1000 benefits…
McCain/Obama on 60 Minutes last night.
Once again, 60 Minutes (and the media in general) wears their Liberal bias on their sleeves for all to see:
[quote]Bondslave wrote:
Because the democrats, or liberals I should say, weren’t so radical in their views until recently.[/quote]
Do you have any evidence of this? Not saying you aren’t right, but it seems to me the 70s were more radical than today in some ways.
The purpose of education is not to recite facts, but to learn how to separate fact from fiction. It is about learning how to learn. This is especially true at the graduate school level. People can have a wealth of real world knowledge and experience, but still be at the grade school level when it comes to evaluating objective truth.
True. The advantage of a good education is that it teaches you how to think objectively about facts, and to identify the pitfalls people are likely to fall into when developing their world view. You recognize the biases in yourself and in others, and are better equipped to draw accurate conclusions despite having those biases.
If the fundies are right, they shouldn’t be afraid of objective methods for determining whether or not a claim is true. When you are told to “just have faith”, that is a flashing danger sign.
I don’t think all fundies are uneducated. I was just commenting on the statistical fact that the more educated people are, the more liberal they tend to be.
Mage, you make some good points and I’d like to continue the discussion. I’ve promised to take a hiatus on the gay debate, so let’s pick up that part of the discussion later.
On a general note, I agree that it is important to look at the reputation and scientific integrity of an academic journal in considering the quality of research it publishes. It is also important to consider the methodology being used in a given study, before drawing conclusions based on that methodology.
I believe the medical and mental health organizations have done this, and their conclusions are based on hundreds of studies from a broad range of respected scientific journals.
Is it possible every one of these scientific institutions is dead wrong? Theoretically yes, but I think it is very unlikely. When you find yourself disagreeing with the strong consensus of every major scientific organization on the planet, it is likely that you are wrong, not them.
That’s all I’m going to say about science in this thread, but would be happy to discuss further in another thread.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Once again, 60 Minutes (and the media in general) wears their Liberal bias on their sleeves for all to see:
[/quote]
I agree that some of the media are liberally biased. Do you similarly recognize that some of the media are conservatively biased? Or does bias only exist in one direction?
There are biases in all directions.
The obvious ‘go to’ argument against a Liberal news bias is to point out FoxNews. Perhaps, I don’t watch it. However, I do know that some of the personalities on that channel don’t hide their bias and in fact market it.
However, the other big outlets, who claim that is no bias are more plentiful: ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and certainly NPR, which just needs to go away, or be funded exclusively through private donations and not subsidized by taxpayers.
Fair enough. I have no problem with acknowledging the bias of the media, as long people recognize that the bias exists on both sides.
Unfortunately, people usually flock to the news that reinforces their preconceptions. Human nature I guess.
[quote]lixy wrote:
McCain Seen as Less Likely to Bring Change, Poll Finds
McCain Seen as Less Likely to Bring Change, Poll Finds - The New York Times [/quote]
Yes Barack wants to Nationalize our Financial Institutions and Healtcare and Socialize this country…change for the worst.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mage, you make some good points and I’d like to continue the discussion. I’ve promised to take a hiatus on the gay debate, so let’s pick up that part of the discussion later.
On a general note, I agree that it is important to look at the reputation and scientific integrity of an academic journal in considering the quality of research it publishes. It is also important to consider the methodology being used in a given study, before drawing conclusions based on that methodology.
I believe the medical and mental health organizations have done this, and their conclusions are based on hundreds of studies from a broad range of respected scientific journals.
Is it possible every one of these scientific institutions is dead wrong? Theoretically yes, but I think it is very unlikely. When you find yourself disagreeing with the strong consensus of every major scientific organization on the planet, it is likely that you are wrong, not them.
That’s all I’m going to say about science in this thread, but would be happy to discuss further in another thread.[/quote]
Again I have no problem with science. But then the science gets filtered through a political eye.
The science of the referenced study only had the fact that gay men in relationships are less likely to say they sleep around. That’s it.
Then we get to the conclusion, and that is where bias starts to show up. But even then they said it “suggested, but did not prove…” And still you took it as proof, taking the leap to a conclusion.
This is not science, it is politics. You are filtering it through your bias.
It is normal for us to have biases. It is the nature of our brains to filter reality through our past experiences and beliefs. It is important for us to understand our biases. (I am attempting to keep myself from launching into a full philosophical spiel.)
You have to be careful that you are learning from science, and not making it fit your beliefs. I see too much of this going on.
Economic Fears Give Obama Clear Lead Over McCain in Poll
I don’t know, Lix:
This Poll doesn’t seem to match with most others.
They all seem to suggest that Obama is behind.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t know, Lix:
This Poll doesn’t seem to match with most others.
They all seem to suggest that Obama is behind.
Mufasa[/quote]
She’s just wishful thinking.