|
On October 22 2011 18:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.htmlGoing on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it. Would I do that? No Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct. People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism. I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias.
You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it.
However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
|
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post.
Wow, why was he banned? Personal opinions are not allowed here?
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 22 2011 23:20 Luepert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. Wow, why was he banned? Personal opinions are not allowed here?
Read the thread. It has to do with martyring and has been explained.
|
On October 22 2011 22:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 18:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.htmlGoing on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it. Would I do that? No Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct. People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism. I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field. You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias. You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it. However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against?
You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
|
Any progress on this proposal by Gillard? Surely something will come of it, the phrasing of the question will not suit either side and only aim to achieve middle ground.
The question will be something along the lines of homosexual couples being permitted to sign a partnership/gay marriage agreement having the same rights/benefits as married couples. Expect outrage from obsessive lefties...
|
On October 23 2011 00:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 22:55 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2011 18:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.htmlGoing on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it. Would I do that? No Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct. People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism. I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field. You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias. You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it. However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion. So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against? You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
Lol. That was a theory which seemed appropriate because it fit SOME of the data and was somewhat influenced by anti-gay politics. Regardless, further work has discovered that, in fact, this is not true because there are significant differences between people who are mentally sick. While it was a supported hypothesis, it turned out it was false. And you know how? By people doing more and more work to try to support or dismiss the hypothesis. It was never an established "fact" it was an arbitrary classification. It's such a different quality of work than the work people cite for parenting, for instance.
But you know what? continue to retreat and think "oh science was wrong before, therefore it's always wrong!" because it's certainly easier than actually reading ALL the work to understand why it's no longer thought this way. The earth isn't round because we used to believe it was flat.
|
Regardless of my personal feelings I think it's a simple matter of liberty. They should have the same rights as anyone else. When we deny one group of people personal freedoms, we weaken our own freedoms.
|
On October 23 2011 00:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 22:55 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2011 18:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.htmlGoing on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it. Would I do that? No Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct. People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism. I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field. You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias. You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it. However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion. So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against? You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
No one is trying to force any opinion on anyone, we're just stating that your opinion is factually wrong. You can stick with it if you want, but that doesn't make it any more right.
As for the suggestion that gay people are mentally ill Rhine already said this has since been proven false. Even if that wasn't the case those studies are not saying that gay people are mentally ill. They suggest that mental illness might be more common in homosexuals than heterosexuals. It doesn't even imply any direct causal link between being gay and being more prone to mental illness. It might very well have been that other factors, like social pressure and shame (especially since many of the studies were quite old), could have been the reason for increased mental illness among gay people had there been one. That would have sounded plausible to me.
|
Having only read the OP, and having lived in Australia for a short time, I would've said that there was a substantial gay community in metropolitan Australia (which makes up most of the population). It wouldn't surprise me if this passed before something similar in the USA or UK.
|
I say to all gay people sure go for it. I may not agree with it personally (not something I would ever do), but it doesn't affect me and rights shouldn't be restricted or given to a certain group of people. Also I don't get the mentality that somehow your own personal marriage is devalued or infringed upon by letting two other people get married. If it offends your beliefs, sorry you're offended, but move on please.
Don't Heteros get divorced more often than Homosexuals? If marriage was so sacred to these people you'd think they could live together. I feel like Australia, the US, and the rest of the world really just need to live and let live, pass this, and be done with it. One less issue to bicker and fight about.
|
On October 22 2011 20:27 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 18:34 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote:
One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way. Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects  $$$$$$$ is involved eh When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior? You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it?
Academia's liberal bias is well documented.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/academias-liberal-bias/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/dont_think_outside_the_college.html
One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican.
|
as an australian, im confident this is just another vote buying campaign by a labor government drowning in its own incompetence. pathetic they'd resort to such popularist policies in an attempt to please all of the minority groups
|
On October 23 2011 14:16 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 20:27 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 22 2011 18:34 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote:
One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way. Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior? You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it? Academia's liberal bias is well documented. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/academias-liberal-bias/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.htmlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/dont_think_outside_the_college.htmlShow nested quote + One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican.
The only things that your post showed was that (in link one), scientists are more likely to vote liberally. The other two are speculative in nature, lack a citation at the bottom I can read, or are from the new york times, all things that remove them from being discussed seriously as sources of fact.
The mere fact that the scientists vote liberally does not mean their studies, their papers, or their official, peer reviewed journal articles are liberally biased. A well done and written study will not spin anything in any way, and most real, accepted scientific publishing institutions would not publish something with obvious liberal bias that clearly fouled the data.
Even if there is bias in the write-up, there isn't in the raw data, which is what you should look at to draw your own conclusions anyway. The conclusion and the summaries are, by their reductive and interpretive natures, biased by the person writing them. Data has no such issue, and sadly, at the end of the day, this means your argument holds no water.
Also, calling psychiatry a soft science is not fair, because it is a medical specialty and all medicine, because of our limited understanding of the human body and the unpredictable nature of disease and disorder, is more of an applied science mixed with a little art. Psychiatry is no more a science than surgery or oncology.
Calling psychology a soft science isnt really fair either, we just havent advanced our knowledge of it enough yet. When you get really advanced in biology, it starts to blend with chemistry and the line between them is blurred. Likewise, when you get really deep into psychology (a depth we are only just now starting to poke at), it starts blending with biology and biochemistry because, at the end of the day, all brain functionality directly descends from chemical reactions.
EDIT: after a closer read, I realize that link one isnt anything other than a direct copy from the nyt article, which contains no sources, no easily accessible link to the article etc. Also, since the paper they are talking about was written by self admitted conservatives (or libertarians, etc, point is that they were not liberals, nor were they completely free of political bias), there is an inherent bias in them as well, which throws their paper into the same doubt you cast over the papers you decry here. You have to apply all criteria evenly, or not at all. No picksing and choosing.
|
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
wtf I thought that a chill place like aus would have already legalized something like gay marriage.
|
On October 23 2011 14:41 pyrogenetix wrote:
wtf I thought that a chill place like aus would have already legalized something like gay marriage.
Thats the problem. We have this chill image around the world and our population certainly is cool but our parliament =_=...
|
On October 23 2011 14:35 drshdwpuppet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 14:16 cLutZ wrote:On October 22 2011 20:27 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 22 2011 18:34 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote:
One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way. Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior? You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it? Academia's liberal bias is well documented. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/academias-liberal-bias/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.htmlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/dont_think_outside_the_college.html One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican. The only things that your post showed was that (in link one), scientists are more likely to vote liberally. The other two are speculative in nature, lack a citation at the bottom I can read, or are from the new york times, all things that remove them from being discussed seriously as sources of fact. The mere fact that the scientists vote liberally does not mean their studies, their papers, or their official, peer reviewed journal articles are liberally biased. A well done and written study will not spin anything in any way, and most real, accepted scientific publishing institutions would not publish something with obvious liberal bias that clearly fouled the data. Even if there is bias in the write-up, there isn't in the raw data, which is what you should look at to draw your own conclusions anyway. The conclusion and the summaries are, by their reductive and interpretive natures, biased by the person writing them. Data has no such issue, and sadly, at the end of the day, this means your argument holds no water. Also, calling psychiatry a soft science is not fair, because it is a medical specialty and all medicine, because of our limited understanding of the human body and the unpredictable nature of disease and disorder, is more of an applied science mixed with a little art. Psychiatry is no more a science than surgery or oncology. Calling psychology a soft science isnt really fair either, we just havent advanced our knowledge of it enough yet. When you get really advanced in biology, it starts to blend with chemistry and the line between them is blurred. Likewise, when you get really deep into psychology (a depth we are only just now starting to poke at), it starts blending with biology and biochemistry because, at the end of the day, all brain functionality directly descends from chemical reactions. EDIT: after a closer read, I realize that link one isnt anything other than a direct copy from the nyt article, which contains no sources, no easily accessible link to the article etc. Also, since the paper they are talking about was written by self admitted conservatives (or libertarians, etc, point is that they were not liberals, nor were they completely free of political bias), there is an inherent bias in them as well, which throws their paper into the same doubt you cast over the papers you decry here. You have to apply all criteria evenly, or not at all. No picksing and choosing.
I actually don't care, I'm just saying that I have not seen a study (or press report about one) that says Academia is conservative, whilst I have seen ones that have. It would seem that there is a consensus that it is true, I would think if people thought they could do a legitimate study that said otherwise they would. I mean, there are plenty of people who come out with studies that question Smoking's link to X.
|
On October 23 2011 14:59 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 14:35 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 23 2011 14:16 cLutZ wrote:On October 22 2011 20:27 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 22 2011 18:34 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote:
One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way. Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior? You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it? Academia's liberal bias is well documented. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/academias-liberal-bias/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.htmlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/dont_think_outside_the_college.html One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican. The only things that your post showed was that (in link one), scientists are more likely to vote liberally. The other two are speculative in nature, lack a citation at the bottom I can read, or are from the new york times, all things that remove them from being discussed seriously as sources of fact. The mere fact that the scientists vote liberally does not mean their studies, their papers, or their official, peer reviewed journal articles are liberally biased. A well done and written study will not spin anything in any way, and most real, accepted scientific publishing institutions would not publish something with obvious liberal bias that clearly fouled the data. Even if there is bias in the write-up, there isn't in the raw data, which is what you should look at to draw your own conclusions anyway. The conclusion and the summaries are, by their reductive and interpretive natures, biased by the person writing them. Data has no such issue, and sadly, at the end of the day, this means your argument holds no water. Also, calling psychiatry a soft science is not fair, because it is a medical specialty and all medicine, because of our limited understanding of the human body and the unpredictable nature of disease and disorder, is more of an applied science mixed with a little art. Psychiatry is no more a science than surgery or oncology. Calling psychology a soft science isnt really fair either, we just havent advanced our knowledge of it enough yet. When you get really advanced in biology, it starts to blend with chemistry and the line between them is blurred. Likewise, when you get really deep into psychology (a depth we are only just now starting to poke at), it starts blending with biology and biochemistry because, at the end of the day, all brain functionality directly descends from chemical reactions. EDIT: after a closer read, I realize that link one isnt anything other than a direct copy from the nyt article, which contains no sources, no easily accessible link to the article etc. Also, since the paper they are talking about was written by self admitted conservatives (or libertarians, etc, point is that they were not liberals, nor were they completely free of political bias), there is an inherent bias in them as well, which throws their paper into the same doubt you cast over the papers you decry here. You have to apply all criteria evenly, or not at all. No picksing and choosing. I actually don't care, I'm just saying that I have not seen a study (or press report about one) that says Academia is conservative, whilst I have seen ones that have. It would seem that there is a consensus that it is true, I would think if people thought they could do a legitimate study that said otherwise they would. I mean, there are plenty of people who come out with studies that question Smoking's link to X.
You don't get the point. The studies that question the link between smoking and disease are disregarded not because they go against established dogma, but because they are flawed. A well designed, well executed study is not dismissed lightly. Sure, it's just one paper, but when a few well documented reports of something funny happening in the same way start popping up, you bet that someone will connect the dots.
All you have is an accusation that academia is liberally biased to refute data driven conclusions. This is ad hominem on a grand scale and is simply fallacious. Perhaps reality has a liberal bias, eh?
|
On October 23 2011 15:23 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 14:59 cLutZ wrote:On October 23 2011 14:35 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 23 2011 14:16 cLutZ wrote:On October 22 2011 20:27 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 22 2011 18:34 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote:
One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way. Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior? You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it? Academia's liberal bias is well documented. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/academias-liberal-bias/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.htmlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/dont_think_outside_the_college.html One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican. The only things that your post showed was that (in link one), scientists are more likely to vote liberally. The other two are speculative in nature, lack a citation at the bottom I can read, or are from the new york times, all things that remove them from being discussed seriously as sources of fact. The mere fact that the scientists vote liberally does not mean their studies, their papers, or their official, peer reviewed journal articles are liberally biased. A well done and written study will not spin anything in any way, and most real, accepted scientific publishing institutions would not publish something with obvious liberal bias that clearly fouled the data. Even if there is bias in the write-up, there isn't in the raw data, which is what you should look at to draw your own conclusions anyway. The conclusion and the summaries are, by their reductive and interpretive natures, biased by the person writing them. Data has no such issue, and sadly, at the end of the day, this means your argument holds no water. Also, calling psychiatry a soft science is not fair, because it is a medical specialty and all medicine, because of our limited understanding of the human body and the unpredictable nature of disease and disorder, is more of an applied science mixed with a little art. Psychiatry is no more a science than surgery or oncology. Calling psychology a soft science isnt really fair either, we just havent advanced our knowledge of it enough yet. When you get really advanced in biology, it starts to blend with chemistry and the line between them is blurred. Likewise, when you get really deep into psychology (a depth we are only just now starting to poke at), it starts blending with biology and biochemistry because, at the end of the day, all brain functionality directly descends from chemical reactions. EDIT: after a closer read, I realize that link one isnt anything other than a direct copy from the nyt article, which contains no sources, no easily accessible link to the article etc. Also, since the paper they are talking about was written by self admitted conservatives (or libertarians, etc, point is that they were not liberals, nor were they completely free of political bias), there is an inherent bias in them as well, which throws their paper into the same doubt you cast over the papers you decry here. You have to apply all criteria evenly, or not at all. No picksing and choosing. I actually don't care, I'm just saying that I have not seen a study (or press report about one) that says Academia is conservative, whilst I have seen ones that have. It would seem that there is a consensus that it is true, I would think if people thought they could do a legitimate study that said otherwise they would. I mean, there are plenty of people who come out with studies that question Smoking's link to X. You don't get the point. The studies that question the link between smoking and disease are disregarded not because they go against established dogma, but because they are flawed. A well designed, well executed study is not dismissed lightly. Sure, it's just one paper, but when a few well documented reports of something funny happening in the same way start popping up, you bet that someone will connect the dots. All you have is an accusation that academia is liberally biased to refute data driven conclusions. This is ad hominem on a grand scale and is simply fallacious. Perhaps reality has a liberal bias, eh?
Like I said, I don't care nor have a comment on its effects on research. I'm just saying that the overwhelming evidence is that the people themselves are liberal.
|
On October 23 2011 15:33 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 15:23 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 23 2011 14:59 cLutZ wrote:On October 23 2011 14:35 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 23 2011 14:16 cLutZ wrote:On October 22 2011 20:27 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 22 2011 18:34 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote:
One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way. Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior? You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it? Academia's liberal bias is well documented. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/academias-liberal-bias/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.htmlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/dont_think_outside_the_college.html One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican. The only things that your post showed was that (in link one), scientists are more likely to vote liberally. The other two are speculative in nature, lack a citation at the bottom I can read, or are from the new york times, all things that remove them from being discussed seriously as sources of fact. The mere fact that the scientists vote liberally does not mean their studies, their papers, or their official, peer reviewed journal articles are liberally biased. A well done and written study will not spin anything in any way, and most real, accepted scientific publishing institutions would not publish something with obvious liberal bias that clearly fouled the data. Even if there is bias in the write-up, there isn't in the raw data, which is what you should look at to draw your own conclusions anyway. The conclusion and the summaries are, by their reductive and interpretive natures, biased by the person writing them. Data has no such issue, and sadly, at the end of the day, this means your argument holds no water. Also, calling psychiatry a soft science is not fair, because it is a medical specialty and all medicine, because of our limited understanding of the human body and the unpredictable nature of disease and disorder, is more of an applied science mixed with a little art. Psychiatry is no more a science than surgery or oncology. Calling psychology a soft science isnt really fair either, we just havent advanced our knowledge of it enough yet. When you get really advanced in biology, it starts to blend with chemistry and the line between them is blurred. Likewise, when you get really deep into psychology (a depth we are only just now starting to poke at), it starts blending with biology and biochemistry because, at the end of the day, all brain functionality directly descends from chemical reactions. EDIT: after a closer read, I realize that link one isnt anything other than a direct copy from the nyt article, which contains no sources, no easily accessible link to the article etc. Also, since the paper they are talking about was written by self admitted conservatives (or libertarians, etc, point is that they were not liberals, nor were they completely free of political bias), there is an inherent bias in them as well, which throws their paper into the same doubt you cast over the papers you decry here. You have to apply all criteria evenly, or not at all. No picksing and choosing. I actually don't care, I'm just saying that I have not seen a study (or press report about one) that says Academia is conservative, whilst I have seen ones that have. It would seem that there is a consensus that it is true, I would think if people thought they could do a legitimate study that said otherwise they would. I mean, there are plenty of people who come out with studies that question Smoking's link to X. You don't get the point. The studies that question the link between smoking and disease are disregarded not because they go against established dogma, but because they are flawed. A well designed, well executed study is not dismissed lightly. Sure, it's just one paper, but when a few well documented reports of something funny happening in the same way start popping up, you bet that someone will connect the dots. All you have is an accusation that academia is liberally biased to refute data driven conclusions. This is ad hominem on a grand scale and is simply fallacious. Perhaps reality has a liberal bias, eh? Like I said, I don't care nor have a comment on its effects on research. I'm just saying that the overwhelming evidence is that the people themselves are liberal.
That is not the same as your charge that academia has a liberal bias.
|
On October 23 2011 15:46 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 15:33 cLutZ wrote:On October 23 2011 15:23 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 23 2011 14:59 cLutZ wrote:On October 23 2011 14:35 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 23 2011 14:16 cLutZ wrote:On October 22 2011 20:27 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 22 2011 18:34 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote:
One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way. Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior? You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it? Academia's liberal bias is well documented. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/academias-liberal-bias/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.htmlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/dont_think_outside_the_college.html One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican. The only things that your post showed was that (in link one), scientists are more likely to vote liberally. The other two are speculative in nature, lack a citation at the bottom I can read, or are from the new york times, all things that remove them from being discussed seriously as sources of fact. The mere fact that the scientists vote liberally does not mean their studies, their papers, or their official, peer reviewed journal articles are liberally biased. A well done and written study will not spin anything in any way, and most real, accepted scientific publishing institutions would not publish something with obvious liberal bias that clearly fouled the data. Even if there is bias in the write-up, there isn't in the raw data, which is what you should look at to draw your own conclusions anyway. The conclusion and the summaries are, by their reductive and interpretive natures, biased by the person writing them. Data has no such issue, and sadly, at the end of the day, this means your argument holds no water. Also, calling psychiatry a soft science is not fair, because it is a medical specialty and all medicine, because of our limited understanding of the human body and the unpredictable nature of disease and disorder, is more of an applied science mixed with a little art. Psychiatry is no more a science than surgery or oncology. Calling psychology a soft science isnt really fair either, we just havent advanced our knowledge of it enough yet. When you get really advanced in biology, it starts to blend with chemistry and the line between them is blurred. Likewise, when you get really deep into psychology (a depth we are only just now starting to poke at), it starts blending with biology and biochemistry because, at the end of the day, all brain functionality directly descends from chemical reactions. EDIT: after a closer read, I realize that link one isnt anything other than a direct copy from the nyt article, which contains no sources, no easily accessible link to the article etc. Also, since the paper they are talking about was written by self admitted conservatives (or libertarians, etc, point is that they were not liberals, nor were they completely free of political bias), there is an inherent bias in them as well, which throws their paper into the same doubt you cast over the papers you decry here. You have to apply all criteria evenly, or not at all. No picksing and choosing. I actually don't care, I'm just saying that I have not seen a study (or press report about one) that says Academia is conservative, whilst I have seen ones that have. It would seem that there is a consensus that it is true, I would think if people thought they could do a legitimate study that said otherwise they would. I mean, there are plenty of people who come out with studies that question Smoking's link to X. You don't get the point. The studies that question the link between smoking and disease are disregarded not because they go against established dogma, but because they are flawed. A well designed, well executed study is not dismissed lightly. Sure, it's just one paper, but when a few well documented reports of something funny happening in the same way start popping up, you bet that someone will connect the dots. All you have is an accusation that academia is liberally biased to refute data driven conclusions. This is ad hominem on a grand scale and is simply fallacious. Perhaps reality has a liberal bias, eh? Like I said, I don't care nor have a comment on its effects on research. I'm just saying that the overwhelming evidence is that the people themselves are liberal. That is not the same as your charge that academia has a liberal bias.
If people in academia are liberal, then academia has a liberal bias. Likewise, if people in academia were conservative, then academia would have a conservative bias.
Peer review helps lessen the effect of biases, it doesn't eliminate them altogether. This is especially true when the author, editors, reviewers all have the same bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
