Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lindykim
What do you believe 'peer reviews" should be based upon if not a 'body' of 'anecdotal' (firsthand knowledge) evidence?

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.

190 posted on 02/28/2005 9:17:47 AM PST by Modernman ("Normally, I don't listen to women, or doctors." - Captain Hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies ]


To: Modernman

snip...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.



All humans are afflicted by pride (self-conceit) to varying degrees.
The pride of some, as in the cases of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hussein, becomes so monstrous that it becomes diabolical. Now we all know pride exists, we can see it's outward manifestations, and all of us have been made to suffer from the
consequences of it, as with the 100,000,000 who were exterminated because of the monstrous diabolical pride of the aforementioned tyrants. We know it exists, but we cannot see it, measure it, or test it, nor do we know why any of us should be afflicted by it.


We know it exists. How? Firsthand knowledge.


Secular human/atheist/socialist scientists have become the modern atheist/agnostic/secular human/socialists version of ancient pagans shamans and high priests. And "nonintelligence bearing matter," being the "creator" of the aforementioned people, is today's version of the ancient pagan's 'wooden idols" and 'golden calves."


196 posted on 04/03/2005 3:02:32 PM PDT by Lindykim (*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson