[Praxeologue]

Academic bias in the social sciences blinds the vast majority of us to the truth. The example here is of sixty studies that conclude gay parents are good for children versus one that disagrees. How many times have we had discussions with liberals who end the conversation by saying that "the studies agree with me"?

The facts on the ground will eventually disprove the global warming myth, but myths in the social sciences will live on unless defeated in battle.

[SECURE AMERICA]

Did they have an anti-gay political agenda?
Do those attacking the study have a pro homosexual agenda?

[SECURE AMERICA]

You need a science study to understand that a child raised in a pervert household is going to have some issues? What no one has any common snese anymore?

[Talisker]

All science is statistics.

Hard science derives its statistics from data quantified from the most independent possible observations of the natural world. Even then, Heisenberg and others have shown that these observations inescapably change the data.

Social science derives its statistics from inherently biased definitions based on unproven assumptions, common sense and political gain. When asked about social science, Heisenberg got drunk, fell on the floor and waved an empty bottle, shouting “what drives me to drink is that sometimes it actually works!”

[piytar]

My only dispute with this piece is referring to social “science” as “scientific.” To be blunt, it is not.

[fwdude]

I belief that the homo-leftists really know that their commissioned studies are bunk and that the Regnerus study had a lot of validity, but they just don't care. Their political agenda is all important, even over truth.

[fella]

Many academics suffer from the “Bell Curve” syndrome which causes them to ignore the truth and instead impose peer pressured agendas in their studies in order to get along. Much like the GOP leadership on Capitol Hill.

[Chainmail]

It started when the American Psychiatric Association decided to remove homosexuality from its list of mental diseases. It isn’t science when you can pick and choose results.

[Wuli]

Sociology has morphed (if it was not already) a non-scientific pursuit, as it usually turns the maxim that correlation is not causation on its head and attempts to say that correlation is all that is needed to understand something.

From that unscientific method, all that is needed is to be sure to collect and arrange data that will prove a correlation (usually one already presumed to exist by those doing the project), and those needing to understand any causees and any complexity of causes need not apply; and don’t dare question any biases in what data was collected or how it was collected or if either the dataset or its collection methods were scientifically valid, UNLESS the results of a social science project returns a finding contrary to the reigning political orthodoxy in academia in the social sciences.