Posted on 07/10/2014 7:59:08 PM PDT by markomalley
There’s been no shortage of media coverage of a new study that purportedly shows that children raised by same-sex partners fare better than other children.
“Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers, research shows,” was the headline of a Washington Post story. “Largest-ever study of same-sex couples’ kids finds they’re better off than other children,” proclaimed Vox, while NBCNews.com announced, “Children of Same-Sex Parents Are Healthier: Study.”
But the actual study is a little more, well, complicated.
In an article published on Public Discourse, University of Texas at Austin professor Mark Regnerus takes issue with the study’s method.
The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia, found that “children in same-sex families scored better on a number of key measures of physical health and social well-being than kids from the general population,” according to an article written by one of the researchers on The Conversation.
But the sample surveyed in the study chose to participate. The Melbourne researchers didn’t randomly select the first 500 same-sex couples they found, after checking for sufficient regional/income/educational diversity. Instead, they advertised the study – and couples found the researchers, not vice versa. Furthermore, the couples then reported on how their children were – and no outside party fact-checked those results, or evaluated the children independently.
Talking about the couples who participated in the study, Regnerus sounds this note of caution:
[P]articipants—parents reporting about their children’s lives—are all well aware of the political import of the study topic, and an unknown number of them certainly signed up for that very reason. As a result, it seems unwise to trust their self-reports, given the high risk of “social desirability bias,” or the tendency to portray oneself (or here, one’s children) as better than they actually are.
Ultimately, Regnerus argues, this study’s methodology is so problematic the results aren’t worth taking seriously. He concludes:
Until social scientists decide to do the difficult, expensive work of locating same-sex attracted parents (however defined) through random, population-based sampling strategies—preferably ones that do not “give away” the primary research question(s) up front, as [this study] did—we simply cannot know whether claims like “no differences” or “happier and healthier than” are true, valid, and on target.
It should come as no surprise the news media trumpeted a study with these findings. Unfortunately for readers, flawed reporting on a flawed study does a disservice to everyone.
All articles on this story keep leaving this part out....
the report is a year old. The head researcher, Dr Simon Crouch, is a homosexual...so of course there is no bias
This study was not science. It might look superficially like a scientific study, but without proper methodology and without the input of actual scientists (sociologists are NOT scientists), it is meaningless.
True scientists try to suppress their own opinions as much as they humanly can. In real scientific studies, the study is designed in such a way as to eliminate any residual bias.
If the kind of poll you mean is one of those website surveys, then, yes. It was not a study.
Global Warming isn’t science either, but those that “believe” in this trash sure think it is. So “believed” is this that it has become inculcated in the laws.
Was Silent Spring based on science? This book led to the ban of DDT and it’s BS lives on to this day as a “matter of fact” in the public’s consciousness. This ban caused the death of tens of thousands of humans!
Science becomes a tool with which ideas that society “believes in” are affirmed. Look at the effort put into trying to normalize homosexuality, trying to prove a genetic link (20 years and a genome project and we still don’t have anything, but it’s still written about a if it’s a matter of fact), or trying to show that it’s natural, or even suppressing any derogatory information. While the Nazi’s wrote their racial pseudo science which we today mock and laugh at, even describe as unethical, we have our own version of the same thing! We write long articles on “Does Race Exist” in Scientific American, and of course with some Photoshopping and rhetoric come to our conclusions: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1023558/posts
Why do you think they stopped doing mass IQ tests years ago to children at early ages? What do you think these tests were showing? Why do you think the government stopped collecting any metrics that show a linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia?
Science feeds the ignorant masses affirmation for their behaviors and ideas. At it’s most basic level, science explains the world around us and our culture ultimately defines how we interpret the data, and what we study or suppress. Science only pretends to be objective, but it’s actually highly subjective, and always has been.
There is real science, just like their is a real truth. But that accounts for about 10% of what we call science. The rest is no more than a sales pitch for a product, person, or idea. The so called social/psychological and environmental sciences are the worst!
PS- Now that NASA gets a “budget” to study Global Warming, what do you think they will find?
Ultimately, in a secular society, we bump God from the pedestal and put man on it. Science is the argument we will use to do this with.
A brilliant, intellectual, really-really smart, scientific, Progressive study done by brilliant, intellectual, really-really smart, scientific, Progressive geniuses.
/s/
IMHO
These people are Darwinists, let's look at logic. If offspring are better off with same sex "parents" (an impossibility, I know, but let's go with it), wouldn't evolution then favor same sex matings? Or send offspring into same sex groupings for raising. Mother and fathers or family units would not exist.
We're supposed to believe that voila, a study shows same sex child raising is superior to mothers, fathers and family.
You have to be stupid to believe this crap.
Doing studies of this sort is an exercise in futility and utter pointlessness. Anyone who could imagine that a same sex couple would ON AVERAGE be better at parenting than a normal heterosexual married couple who have children because they want to have children and see them grow up to be contributing members of society could imagine that a Rooster would do a better job of pulling a wagon than a Clydesdale horse. No one would be stupid enough to suggest that we need a study to determine whether a Rooster can pull a wagon better than a Clydesdale horse can pull a wagon.
Very good. Thanks.
I think with the right bribe, we have plenty of congressmen and senators who would put that into some funding bill.
Unfortunately you may be right, there seems to be no limit to the sort of insanity that congress is willing to consider now.
First of all, let me point out that I am a scientist, and most of what I post is from a scientific perspective.
What I have seen in my career is that there are fields of science that use good solid methodology, and other fields where methodology is flawed. Typically, the more physical a science is, the better the methodology. With the kind of science I do, there is hardly any question of subjective interpretations: either a PCR experiment shows a result, or it doesn't. Clinical research tends to become more subjective, and much of this is because the physicians doing the research are not trained as researchers and do not understand scientific methodology. People tend to be emotionally attached to their ideas and it takes training and experience to learn to let go of an idea once it has been proven factually wrong; I've seen far too many observational studies where the data was fine, but the researcher interpreted it in a way that fit their preconceptions, rather than the way most supported by the data. Or they see a correlation and mistake it for causation without ever establishing a causative mechanism.
The issue with anthropogenic global warming is that politicians saw in it a great opportunity to grab more power by masking the power grab as necessary measures to save the environment. The politicians--who decide what kinds of research gets funding--made a lot of money available for global warming research. As a result, even though there still is no solid evidence that human activity is dangerously warming the planet (and the basic premise is flawed, for many technical reasons), there are thousands of papers about global warming. But they aren't, really. They are papers that talk about some other issue--for instance, the increased incidence of food poisoning--and talk about the causes of the issue, and throw in the phrase "because of global warming" because tying anything to global warming might increase the chance of getting future research funded.
True science cannot be forced into a political ideology, or used to support an ideology. The best science is done by those who can separate their personal ideologies and desires from their experiments and be true observers. A scientist who sets up an experiment to test whether the toxicological effects of a new chemical are similar to dioxin, and if it is more or less potent, should not be emotionally invested in an outcome. He or she should record the outcome regardless of personal feelings.
New study shows that cancer is good for your health and the key to weight loss is adding 3 tablespoons of butter to every meal.
Where we disagree is that you’re trying to exclude everything you don’t like (fallacy of exclusion), where there are examples even in the hard sciences where there have been abuses, and you use a method/process to argue that the results are true, while in reality, even there you have examples of where science went wrong.
Back to the point. As society becomes secular, nihilist, hedonist and amoral, expect science to prove what the greedy, angry, selfish, hypersexual masses want. The childless couple is responsible because of their low carbon footprint, abortion is actually good for that child because the mother would have been unable to support the child, homosexuality is actually natural, homosexuals make great parents (the topic of this thread), humans weren’t meant to be monogamous, HIV/AIDS is a disease everyone can get… Want to bet that you’ll see science prove that pot isn’t so bad after all, once it becomes more main stream and legal? Science is often a tool that is used for affirming ideas, people, or things. Once the money starts flowing, science will miraculously determine all sorts of benefits and how minuscule the health risks of pot really are- it’s happening today. The more the public is dumbed down, the more savage the average person becomes, expect only more of this affirmation and junk science.
Science has budgets; those that work in science have ideologies, personalities, cultural biases. The people that run it have kingdoms that need preserved, are politically influenced, and have egos. Most science is there to make money, may that be for a school, corporation, or whatever, and it serves an economic function. There are interests at work that go beyond a mere altruistic desire for knowledge.
There is a methodology/process. Yet, global warming, DDT, the ozone hole, coming ice age, acid rain, paper recycling, glass recycling (enviro junk science). Theories regards human sexuality, homosexuality, crime, intelligence, gender roles (the social sciences) are all contaminated and constantly changing because they are trash/junk science. The hard/natural sciences are contaminated as well, just to a lesser extent. Just consider how for years science was used to disprove the danger of lead in fuel. You had researchers, led by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe stating for years how a little lead doesn’t really affect us that much. Let's go more recent, the “White Coat Project” by Philip Morris, and the “Sound Science” project, by the tobacco industry in large, which used science to create doubt about the dangers of side stream smoke: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050238 Now let's get to current ideas. Did you know that your free will is merely random background noise in your brain? http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10953 So much for free will.
In many cases, this isn’t deliberate misuse of science, and those that are in error are coming to their conclusions using the best science (methodology) available in their time. Unless one thinks Rutherford and Bohr where hacks, they came to their conclusions following a sound methodology and reasoning, but you often don’t know, what you don’t know, and their theories have been superseded.
Science does not live in a vacuum, and the methodology does not guarantee the truth, just as the titles of researchers or some institute, are often used as an appeal to authority or red herring. I'm not saying that all scientists are charlatans, or that it’s all a waste of time, but much of it is, because it is influenced by the culture and economics- much is basically no more than a sales pitch, not much unlike the person in the white lab coat talking about some new diet pill in a commercial. The IPCC, NASA, EPA, FDA, CDC, all have agenda’s and are influenced by forces outside of some scientific methodology/process (the high school textbook answer). You can’t even expect non-profit government agencies with the public trust in mind, to be objective.
Maybe I'm just too cynical.
Actually, what I do is measure against an ideal standard of absolute objectivity, and speaking out against so-called studies that are far from reaching that standard. I have been doing this for years. When studies are based in sound scientific principles and methodology, I say so. And when they are not, I criticize them. In this manner, I have commented on thousands of articles posted on FR and elsewhere. My own personal likes have nothing to do with this. The fact is that some disciplines are far more robust than others: a biochemistry experiment set up with the proper controls to address every possible outcome and enough replicates to show statistical significance is far more reliable than a study that surveys people about their eating habits over the last 20 years and then makes some conclusion (not supported by the evidence) about how eating X leads to heart disease.
Back to the point. As society becomes secular, nihilist, hedonist and amoral, expect science to prove what the greedy, angry, selfish, hypersexual masses want. The childless couple is responsible because of their low carbon footprint, abortion is actually good for that child because the mother would have been unable to support the child, homosexuality is actually natural, homosexuals make great parents (the topic of this thread), humans weren’t meant to be monogamous, HIV/AIDS is a disease everyone can get… Want to bet that you’ll see science prove that pot isn’t so bad after all, once it becomes more main stream and legal? Science is often a tool that is used for affirming ideas, people, or things. Once the money starts flowing, science will miraculously determine all sorts of benefits and how minuscule the health risks of pot really are- it’s happening today. The more the public is dumbed down, the more savage the average person becomes, expect only more of this affirmation and junk science.
Here, you are confounding opinions with science. There is no scientific study that establishes, for example, that a baby is better off being dismembered in the womb than living with an uncertain future. That isn't even a thing that science can answer--thus, any pronouncements by someone making such claims are their own attempt to quash their guilt over the indefensible act of killing an innocent child. Some of the other things you said may be claims made by sociologists but which are not backed by actual science. Sociologists tend to be radical leftists who want the world to be a certain way, and who do all kinds of "studies" designed to give results that support their pre-existing opinion. However, scientists often show completely different things. For instance, despite the numerous beliefs about the benefits of marijuana, recent research is showing that it is very harmful. The legalization attempts, ironically, are making this research possible when it was not possible before, and the results are not looking good.
Anyway, I don't have time to address everything in your post. Just keep in mind that sociology is not science; that there are charlatans in science just as there are elsewhere; that often the publicized studies are not the most scientifically robust studies, but fit the political agenda of the news organization; that the perception of science you might get when your only exposure to it is through the mainstream media is probably extremely skewed; and that the majority of studies that "prove" anthropogenic climate change do no such thing, but only mention it as a buzzword that increases the chance of funding in a highly competitive environment.
Yes, this discussion has grown unwieldy. Let me try it this way-
There is science, but what percent of studies mentioned in the media would you consider such? 10%, 25%, 33%, 50%, 66%, 75%, 90%? Are these studies not presented as science to the public, are these not PhDs, major universities, or research institutes that are releasing this information? Are the people not digesting this information and regurgitating it as some truth? Is public policy not even shaped by these ideas?
Would you consider NASA which now gets 2.6 billion per year to study “climate change” objective? http://climate.nasa.gov/ Climate change has been NASA’s biggest growth area for their budget. They can’t get a man in space anymore, but they have cool websites with quizzes for kids on the dangers of CO2, and they have a Muslim outreach program too! Would you trust the EPA which has a vested interest in growing their administration when it comes to CO2 and their research?
Science isn’t off limits when it comes to lust, greed, envy, wrath, sloth, gluttony, pride.
You can speak for yourself, but you cannot speak for everyone else. You can talk about the theoretical method, but what matters is what is practiced and driving this world. We are a math and science ignorant society. People are naturally predisposed to be hedonistic and the restrains that once were in place (religion and social pressures) are gone. Expect science to tell the masses what to want to hear, since they will pay for this and shower those that affirm them with accolades. Science has become a cheap product for mass consumption, for many it has become an “ersatzreligion,” not a noble search for some truth.
The studies presented in the media are really a mixed bag (pardon the cliché), as are the reasons and timing of the release. A person who is somewhat familiar with basic science and scientific methodology can sort through them and determine which ones are actually reliable. However, the state of education these days is not conducive to critical thinking, therefore a lot of studies which are really agendas cloaked in academic language end up accepted as settled science when they aren't. There is also the problem that science journalists are not trained in science and often distort the relevance of the study, so that even if the study was valid and based on solid evidence and methodology, the reporting about it tells a completely different story.
For several years on FR, I have read science stories that have been posted, and then gone back to the original research to see what the results really are. And then I post about the validity of the research--whether or not the results are plausible, and why.
Most scientists never talk to the public. Most universities that issue press releases about their research are showcasing themselves for the benefit of the public. In these cases, the science is fine, it is the journalist's attempt to understand it and present the information so the public can understand where things fall apart. Again, you have to look at the kind of science being presented in order to assign it some level of validity--a sociology "study" almost certainly is a vehicle for conveying the "researcher's" opinions, while an environmental study may be an accurate description of (for example) the progress made towards cleaning a site where toxic waste drums leaked into the soil. If you understand scientific methodology, and have an ability to think of several possible explanations for an observation, then you have the critical thinking skills to separate the real science from opinions disguised as science.
Would you consider NASA which now gets 2.6 billion per year to study “climate change” objective? http://climate.nasa.gov/ Climate change has been NASA’s biggest growth area for their budget. They can’t get a man in space anymore, but they have cool websites with quizzes for kids on the dangers of CO2, and they have a Muslim outreach program too! Would you trust the EPA which has a vested interest in growing their administration when it comes to CO2 and their research?
These are examples of politicians dictating how the science agencies should operate and what kind of results they should find. Unfortunately, science cannot be shaped to fit politics... the Soviet Union tried that with Lysenko, and ended up falling so far behind in science that Russia is still trying to catch up. Politicians direct money towards specific areas of research all the time. That in itself is not a problem; there are so many possible areas of research that scientists have great freedom to choose their area of research. NASA does some great work. So does the EPA. In fact, the EPA funded most of my graduate work when I was working towards a PhD. The problems stem from the fact that some politicians (and I think we all know their political leaning) want scientists to produce certain results. Power-hungry politicians have not been able to force a socialist dictatorship onto the American people despite attempts dating back to at least the late 1800s. I think that they see in "climate change" a chance to finally eliminate American freedom, not by convincing us that socialism is great and wonderful, but by scaring us that the earth will be destroyed unless we embrace socialism. "Global warming", of course, is the evidence of a dying earth that they are using to scare us into submission. There still is no evidence that CO2 has a disproportionate effect on climate...but the power-hungry politicians are not about to let go of what looks like their best chance ever of finally achieving a totalitarian country. Make no mistake: most of these abuses of science are driven by politicians, not scientists, and most scientists are not complicit in advancing these political goals.
You can speak for yourself, but you cannot speak for everyone else. You can talk about the theoretical method, but what matters is what is practiced and driving this world. We are a math and science ignorant society. People are naturally predisposed to be hedonistic and the restrains that once were in place (religion and social pressures) are gone. Expect science to tell the masses what to want to hear, since they will pay for this and shower those that affirm them with accolades. Science has become a cheap product for mass consumption, for many it has become an “ersatzreligion,” not a noble search for some truth.
Of course, I speak from my personal experience. I relay my observations of the scientific world, since I have now been part of it for about 20 years (not counting undergraduate work), giving me plenty of time to observe how scientists behave and work. As I already pointed out, most scientists do not communicate with the public (I am a bit unusual in this regard). Also, I would venture to say that most of those who regard science as some kind of religion are kooks who really fall for pseudoscience, and couldn't tell the difference between a controlled experiment or statistical sampling. True scientists are not about telling people "what they want to hear." Rather, they are fascinated by some aspect of the natural world and want to study it; if they talk to anyone outside of science at all, it is to gush about their research because they want to share their fascination.
This is a simple case where everything that disproves your position you exclude from the debate be define as non-science.
Trying to point the finger at some imaginary science that is pure and unbiased is like saying communism could work and don’t look at the examples around you, because none of those are real communism.
Let me answer the questions for you.
Maybe 10% of the studies mentioned in the media are actually in any way unbiased, where all variables could be isolated, causality can be established, etc. Not even journals or magazines dedicated to science such as Scientific American are trustworthy. Yes, people do take this as the truth because it tells them what they want to hear, to include that their obesity is not something they can control, that homosexuality is natural, or today that pot is OK. Yes, those that peddle in this trash use their titles, fancy names of some institute or school to appear as if it is science. Yes, policies within government administrations, laws, even what we teach in our schools is affected by this. No, not even iconic institutions dedicated to science and that should do all possible to uphold the public trust, like NASA, are trustworthy because they have a vested financial interest in keeping global warming/climate change alive today. Furthermore, they are heavily politically influenced.
Today- you are already seeing science step more in a favorable position regards marijuana. Why? Because there is money to be made and the winds of time (culture) is becoming more accepting of this drug. Politicians at this point are lining up and throwing themselves behind the pot issue, because like the homosexual agenda, they see this as the next new topic where some political capital can be made. There are several large firms lining up and sponsoring some of this research. The number of pot heads in America is huge, they are a market and they have money.
***The science does not lead the debate, it follows it.***
Science is a whore that is there to sell a product, promote a person or idea.
The complete opposite of your claim is happening, right now. How is the scientific debate regards Marijuana unfolding/being framed?
Cannabis May Grow Stem Cells And Repair the Brain After Injury. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24256257
THC May Treat Inflammatory Diseases and Cancer By Altering Genes. http://www.jbc.org/content/early/2013/11/07/jbc.M113.503037.short#ref-list-1
Cannabinoids Found To Reduce Skin Cancer In Just 20 Weeks. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jphp.12082/abstract
Cannabinoids May Be Helpful In Combating HIV. http://www.jleukbio.org/content/93/5/801.abstract
THC Can Provide Protection From Cardiac Arrest? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537701
Cannabis Can Stop Seizures. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.12321/abstract
Cannabis Combats Brain Degeneration and Increases Stamina. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1607/3326.abstract?sid=20cf2c23-e4fd-49e3-9398-ec8be2e00226
Cannabinoids May Be The Best Medication For Those With PTSD. http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v18/n9/full/mp201361a.html
Cannabis Can Treat Osteoarthritis. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0080440
Cannabis May Prevent Organ Transplants From Being Rejected. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11481-013-9485-1?no-access=true
Science is more often than not, a snake oil salesman because like everything else, it is ruled by budgets. Someone is paying for it, and they want to make money. There are ego’s and personalities at work, political interests, ideologies, political correctness that is filtering... The fixation on a methodology is no more than creating a supra-human mythos, a false perception of accuracy through some process design and reliance on empirical measures therein which even if strictly adhered too still can deliver false answers in all reality.
As I have already explained in some detail, I spend all day, every day, looking at the scientific literature. Not what is reported in the media--I hardly ever waste my time reading media distortions of scientific research--but actual scientific literature. There *are* some standards one must use to judge it, and they are *not*, as you claim, based on whether one likes the findings or not. Furthermore, you cannot judge the entire scientific profession based on what is reported in the media. Over 100,000 scientific articles were published in medical journals over the past month. Not even 0.1% of those are ever reported in the media.
Today- you are already seeing science step more in a favorable position regards marijuana.
Actually, not. It isn't for lack of looking. There really are not favorable reports on marijuana in the medical literature. Now, let me go through some of your supposed "favorable" reports on marijuana:
Cannabis May Grow Stem Cells And Repair the Brain After Injury.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24256257
I can't read anything but the abstract, since the full article is behind a paywall. However, the abstract talks about cannabinoid receptors in neural cells. It does not mention marijuana at all. Although these receptors have aberrant activity that causes a "high" when activated by marijuana, their biological function is to respond to chemicals made in the body--which causes no "high." These researchers' work suggests that finding molecules that can increase or decrease the activity of those receptors might be able to modulate the immune system and even cause neural tissues to regenerate.
I should point out the reason that substances that cause a "high" are called "intoxicants" is because that is exactly what they are. When you feel intoxicated, you are feeling the effects of a sub-lethal dose of poison.
THC May Treat Inflammatory Diseases and Cancer By Altering Genes. http://www.jbc.org/content/early/2013/11/07/jbc.M113.503037.short#ref-list-1
In this article, the researchers used THC to cause the growth of cells that suppress immunity. These cells stop the body from attacking cancer cells and inactivate a control system that prevents uncontrolled cell growth. They looked at how THC alters gene expression in these cells. So, what THC is actually doing here is exactly the opposite of what the link description says. It looks like the researchers characterized a mechanism by which THC (a known potent carcinogen) actually causes cancer. They point out that their work can lead to therapeutic interventions meant to bolster the immune system or treat cancer--but that is far different than saying that THC can have that effect.
One quick comment about altering gene expression: you want to stay away from substances that do that. Slight alteration of gene expression can lead to cancer. More severe alteration of gene expression can be lethal. Dioxin (the subject of my PhD research) does not kill cells--it kills animals because it causes long-term alteration of gene expression. It takes a couple weeks to kill, and it isn't pretty... all through gene expression. Sub-lethal doses of dioxin cause cancer, through its ability to alter gene expression.
Anyway, due to how late it is, I do not have time to read every single article (or abstract if the full article is behind a paywall). However, judging from how the link descriptions mischaracterized the actual research described, I think it is safe to say that many of the other link descriptions are equally mischaracterized.
Keep in mind that using THC to identify therapeutic targets does not mean that THC is therapeutic. I'm too tired to give a biochemistry lesson in receptor function right now... but I will later, if I think it is necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.