- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Spinoff: interpreting scientific data
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:08 am
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:08 am
There is currently a thread about homosexuality on the first page of the poliboard. The article seemingly warns of the dangers of homosexual parenting based on "scientific articles" and, on the surface, looks borderline legitimate.
On closer inspection, the article is published by the Family Research Institute, a non-profit with the stated goal of "one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse"
On further inspection, almost half of the articles cited are co-authored by [not the actor but otherwise shite researcher...happy now?] Kirk fricking Cameron. All of the articles are poorly designed, poorly conceived, poorly written.
Question: how on Earth has the educational system failed us to the point where someone could post such an article with a straight face in an attempt to pass it off in "science?" What can be done to improve basic scientific literacy?
Like I said in the other thread, this place is usually simply charmingly regressive, but this is just embarrassing.
On closer inspection, the article is published by the Family Research Institute, a non-profit with the stated goal of "one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse"
On further inspection, almost half of the articles cited are co-authored by [not the actor but otherwise shite researcher...happy now?] Kirk fricking Cameron. All of the articles are poorly designed, poorly conceived, poorly written.
Question: how on Earth has the educational system failed us to the point where someone could post such an article with a straight face in an attempt to pass it off in "science?" What can be done to improve basic scientific literacy?
Like I said in the other thread, this place is usually simply charmingly regressive, but this is just embarrassing.
This post was edited on 5/26/17 at 11:02 am
24
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:10 am to SleauxPlay
You mean like all of the medical "professionals" that said Trump has a neurological disorder without ever physically examining him or being 1,000 miles in his vicinity?
And how do you think this is the educational system failing us? how about you target the indoctrination institutes that are universities for teaching kids an alternate reality other than the one that actually exists.
That article is pandering... you know what that is, like climate change.
And how do you think this is the educational system failing us? how about you target the indoctrination institutes that are universities for teaching kids an alternate reality other than the one that actually exists.
That article is pandering... you know what that is, like climate change.
This post was edited on 5/26/17 at 10:13 am
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:11 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
What can be done to improve basic scientific literacy
Teach it.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:11 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
Question: how on Earth has the educational system failed us to the point where someone could post such an article with a straight face in an attempt to pass it off in "science?"
quote:Seems like a simple answer to your question.
OP: GoldenNugget
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:11 am to SleauxPlay
I do not know if it is more humorous that you found the need to start another thread attacking the study OR you actually think you will find unbiased studies linked in a political board attached to a sports forum...
Do you read the tabloids at the grocery store and believe the headlines?
Do you read the tabloids at the grocery store and believe the headlines?
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:12 am to back9Tiger
quote:
You mean like all of the medical "professionals" that said Trump has a neurological disorder without ever physically examining him or being 1,000 miles in his vicinity?
Narcissistic PD isn't a neurological disorder, numbnuts. Also, we are talking about interpreting scientific literature. Please do try and stay on topic in future posts.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:12 am to SleauxPlay
Or maybe like the AGW hysteria was championed by Al fricktard Gore.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:13 am to SleauxPlay
Is the issue with the authors or with the data and their interpretation of it?
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:14 am to SleauxPlay
1) When Kirk Cameron is cited as a source, then it's pretty easy to dismiss.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:15 am to The Maj
quote:
I do not know if it is more humorous that you found the need to start another thread attacking the study OR you actually think you will find unbiased studies linked in a political board attached to a sports forum... Do you read the tabloids at the grocery store and believe the headlines?
The broader issue is the general misunderstanding of scientific literature. Of course you expect idiocy on the poliboard, but do you think there aren't scads of folks who read articles like this and confirm their already shitty world views?
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:15 am to FooManChoo
quote:
we are talking about interpreting scientific literature. Please do try and stay on topic in future posts.
Well genius, medical is science, so educate yourself a bit more. How about we add climate change for an example.
The fact of the matter is you're wrong, you're looking for an excuse to attack someone with Christian values that is pandering because only the left loons like you can do that. GFY
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:15 am to back9Tiger
Nobody cares about science. They just want talking points.
I'll publish a paper about no-flow periods in headwater streams to help develop regulations and the only response will be that I'm attacking farmers and homebuilders
I'll publish a paper about no-flow periods in headwater streams to help develop regulations and the only response will be that I'm attacking farmers and homebuilders
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:16 am to back9Tiger
quote:
Well genius, medical is science, so educate yourself a bit more.
Kind of? It's science in the same way engineering is science...
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:16 am to SleauxPlay
I have to say, the logic of just two points is pretty hard to refute. The rest is a bunch of superfluous data which is probably poor.
Human Rights Watch 2008 World Report — ~150 million girls, ~73 million boys “have experienced rape or other sexual violence”
Homosexuals comprise < 2% of adults
I mean, I know it makes people uncomfortable, but the above two facts are pretty solid, with the implication that men are doing the violence to both girls and boys. It would mean 2% of the world is responsible for about 1/3 of the sexual violence.
Scientific data, right?
Human Rights Watch 2008 World Report — ~150 million girls, ~73 million boys “have experienced rape or other sexual violence”
Homosexuals comprise < 2% of adults
I mean, I know it makes people uncomfortable, but the above two facts are pretty solid, with the implication that men are doing the violence to both girls and boys. It would mean 2% of the world is responsible for about 1/3 of the sexual violence.
Scientific data, right?
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:17 am to back9Tiger
quote:
but do you think there aren't scads of folks who read articles like this and confirm their already shitty world views?
They way the majority in this country sees it (and go look at the electoral map) Cochise, you have the shitty world views.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:17 am to SleauxPlay
Such literature is born considered valid from a legal perspective and any expert who would rely on such literature as the basis of their opinions would be struck with swiftness.
Anytime an organizations stated person is to generate empirical research, they are admitting they are essentially working backwards from the desired outcome. Such research is not science
Anytime an organizations stated person is to generate empirical research, they are admitting they are essentially working backwards from the desired outcome. Such research is not science
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:17 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
The broader issue is the general misunderstanding of scientific literature. Of course you expect idiocy on the poliboard, but do you think there aren't scads of folks who read articles like this and confirm their already shitty world views?
There are scads of folks that take the garbage spewed by the MSM as the gospel when it fits their personal views, so why would you reasonably expect someone to be critical of a "study" that supports their views?
Did you just wake up and realize the internet exists?
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:18 am to back9Tiger
quote:
Well genius, medical is science, so educate yourself a bit more. How about we add climate change for an example. The fact of the matter is you're wrong, you're looking for an excuse to attack someone with Christian values that is pandering because only the left loons like you can do that. GFY
So, nothing to do with the topic. Got it.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:18 am to guedeaux
quote:
What can be done to improve basic scientific literacy
Increase funding for scientific education.....Oh wait
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:20 am to SleauxPlay
There should be courses in scientific literature and scientific criticism just as there are for languages.
I work with lots of scientific papers and there is a vast gap between the press release for an article and an article itself. Two have been posted in the last couple of days, one about socialists being weaker, and one about the earliest hominind fossil found in Europe, which did not mean what people thought they did. They would have seen this if they had read the paper, which isn't at all hard to read if you have a basic understanding in stats.
I work with lots of scientific papers and there is a vast gap between the press release for an article and an article itself. Two have been posted in the last couple of days, one about socialists being weaker, and one about the earliest hominind fossil found in Europe, which did not mean what people thought they did. They would have seen this if they had read the paper, which isn't at all hard to read if you have a basic understanding in stats.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News