Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Ireland recovering from Theocracy.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    There is one thing I respect about many of those who patiently (or otherwise) take on YECs in Nat Sci 301: they use arguments and discuss relevant evidence and observations; they do not only point to the consensus as if that settled the matter.
    Yikes, I feel sorry for them.

    Consensus alone means little if anything when strong ideological biases exist, which is very clear.
    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?

    Deal with evidence and argument, instead of playing the 'consensus' cards when those look like they're not going your way.
    If you make an argument I'm happy to deal with it.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      While boils down to basically a repeat of the finding that family stability matters.

      On the subject of adoption, there are two effects that are known (and opposite). One is that adopted children do tend to express concern about their rejection by their birth parents, and tend to feel a certain level of psychological discomfort as a result. The other effect is that parents who seek to adopt a child typically make much better parents than the average parent because (1) they sincerely want the child and the child isn't being born to them by accident, (2) they are at a place in their lives where they have decided they are financially and emotionally ready to support a child, and (3) if the adoption agency has more parents wanting to adopt than children to be adopted it may try to select the 'best' parents for the children.

      That second effect (good parenting) outweighs the first (psychological distress), and adopted children do better on average than non-adopted children.
      I agree that, even given an inherent penalty for the parent or parents who adopt a child older than one year, the benefits can (and often do) outweigh any detriment. It's important to remember that no every situation can be ideal for the children involved and that there are myriad factors that go into a child's upbringing.
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        Yikes, I feel sorry for them.
        Dealing with YEC is fun ... until it isn't. Then one moves to greener pastures (i.e., Civics).
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
          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.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            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'!"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              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'!"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  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.
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    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.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        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.
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                            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.
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                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...)
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                44 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                228 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                72 responses
                                280 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X