In your former response you've argued against using what you've termed "anecdotal" evidence, and in your latter response you've once again called for "peer reviews". What do you believe 'peer reviews" should be based upon if not a 'body' of 'anecdotal' (firsthand knowledge) evidence? Should we accept the personal opinions of people who call themselves 'scientists"? And exactly what is science if not a learning discipline based upon observation, theory, test (of anecdotal evidence), and then more observation, etc.?
"Science" is not something peculiar to people in academia who happen to work in laboratories, etc. The next time you find yourself admiring the precision and lifelikeness of a particular piece of artwork, understand that the artist who produced it is also a 'scientist' in that he too, employs the 'scientific method'. He 'observes, theorizes, tests his theory', and then begins the process all over until at some point he has gathered together enough of what you termed 'anecdotal evidence,' but which is really that invaluable thing known as 'firsthand knowledge' and then he'll proceed with his project.
In my opinion too many Americans have become gulled by selfserving people who call themselves 'scientists' but who are nothing more than charlatans and mountebanks making use of science to empower themselves and to push their personal quackery off onto unsuspecting people who believe that they're being told something truthful .
Even Michael Crichton is exposing the quack-science being produced by quack-scientists.
In the case of your claim that porn is as addictive as crack, there is neurological and bio-chemical evidence that signifies physical addiction to crack. Brain chemistry actually changes due to addiction. If porn led to the same level of addiction, scientists could observe these results. Relying on someone's opinion that they are addicted is meaningless. "Firsthand knowledge" is nothing more than personal opinion.
Should we accept the personal opinions of people who call themselves 'scientists"?
If their opinions and conclusions are backed by objective evidence, sure.
"Science" is not something peculiar to people in academia who happen to work in laboratories, etc. The next time you find yourself admiring the precision and lifelikeness of a particular piece of artwork, understand that the artist who produced it is also a 'scientist' in that he too, employs the 'scientific method'.
Um, no. Music and art have their own defintions of "theory", but that is not the same as scientific theory. You can't compare the two.
In my opinion too many Americans have become gulled by selfserving people who call themselves 'scientists' but who are nothing more than charlatans and mountebanks making use of science to empower themselves and to push their personal quackery off onto unsuspecting people who believe that they're being told something truthful .
Okay. So, rather than rely on objective, peer-reviewed scientific studies, you'll go with anecdoctal evidence where random people tell you, based on nothing but their own personal opinions, that porn is as addictive as crack?
If what you say about the addictiveness of porn is true, there should be some scientific evidence of that.