Replies

"But that's exactly what you're doing. Until the inherently "mushy" subject of human behavior can become as predictable as the subject of physics, there will likely not be an empirical study on the subject to fit your description."

Indeed, there will not be any single study using currently-known methodology which will satisfy what I've laid out as what I believe ought be the standard. Think about it though - if we're picking and choosing which studies we believe and which we do not (poronography causes problems - study good... child molestation doesn't cause problems - study bad) then what's the point of doing the studies at all? If we're not doing the studies for scientific purposes, then we're doing them to make us feel better about our pre-conceived notions. In that case, they're meaningless, pointless, and a waste of time and money. If we're doing them for scientific purposes, then the criteria I've laid out make sense. If our methodology and knowledge have not progress to the point where we can make accurate predictions about individuals, then let's do the next best thing. That is, let's perform lots of studies - good studies - and critique and study them until we're able to make reasonably accurate predictions on a large-scale statistical basis. That gives you trends and probabilities, which are far better than random guesses.

"Again, the people who have personal experience with the effects of pornography, either upon themselves or a loved one, have no need for studies. For them, there is no need for a scientific explanation of the profound change in personality which they, themselves have either experienced or witnessed."

And that's fine, but it's not science, and it's not something one can use to convince a person who's thinking objectively. Ok, someone's brother became addicted to porn and turned into a maniac. That's not evidence - for all we know, 100,000 others looked at the same kind and amount of porn and had no adverse effects. That suggests that some other problem was the true cause behind this individual turning into a maniac.

"Truth does not depend upon science for its validity."

Indeed - in fact, I think it's the other way around. Without truth, science has no meaning. Science can be called the search for truth. Do I want to know if pornography has adverse effects on people? Sure - but the only way I'm going to be convinced that it does is by scientific verification. Science is one of man's methods of finding truth. We know far more about our world than we did just a hundred years ago thanks to the rigorous persuit of science, following the scientific method. While it can never tell us about the meta-physical (God, outside the universe, etc), it can almost certainly tell us just about everything about the physical world. One of the primary goals of any scientific experiment done today is to isolate as many variables as possible until you have a situation that's easily testable. The problem with testing humans is that our lives provide for a nearly infinite and unpredictable array of variables which cannot be reliably isolated. This is the problem we face in psychology, and it's a problem whose only real solution is a new approach to scientific research. In the mean time, the best we can do is take lots rounded estimates and put them together to develop a basic model of what's happening, then draw conclusions from there.

...doing them to make us feel better about our pre-conceived notions.

Pre-conceived notions are frequently true. A study which happens to support my "pre-conceived" notions is not, therefore, false. You seem to imply that any work which supports "old-fashioned" ideas must be a faulty, sloppy and irrelevant "waste of time and money." There are also those who are still convinced that man has not set foot on the moon. No amount of evidence will convince them otherwise, scientific or not. However, the truth of the matter remains, irrespective of their beliefs. The earth remained just as spherical in the years prior to scientific acceptance of the fact.

I'm not really interested in convincing secular skeptics, such as yourself, of facts you don't want to believe. If you are so sure that pornography and its consequences are healthy and strengthening to the American family and culture, then I have no choice but to allow you to live with your delusion.

I suppose there are some who would deny that pain hurts without a study to prove it.

The ones I hope to reach are those who may be living the lie themselves. Those who already know, deep down, they are destroying their family, their career, their lives with pornography and its effects. If anything I say or post helps stop an addict in his tracks long enough to give the matter some serious thought and honestly look at what's happening, then I am satisfied.

And that's fine, but it's not science

No, but it is truth. A repeated, personal experience is often far more convincing than a study, IMO.

But, for the more scientifically persuaded: Dr. Cline's study includes many, if not all, of the elements you want in a study on pornography's effects. Even empirical studies on volunteers proved the negative effects. I'm fully expecting that you won't be convinced, however. Those who don't want to believe something, won't.