Bill Putney <
[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Marc wrote:
>>
>> >Well, you may want to take a look at this:
>> >http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/as4.html?CFID=2115329&CFTOKEN=75269690.
>> >
>> >Funny how that is buried pretty deep in their web site - punching in key
>> >words turns up absolutely nothing related to the orignal article or
>> >above policy letter.
>> >
>> >Here's my take on it: The APA realized that the public isn't yet ready
>> >for the next step in the gay agenda, and because Congress and other
>> >notables were raising such a stink, future gov't funding for studies by
>> >those publishing in the APA journal were at risk. So they are now
>> >saying that they don't buy into the "science" that proves that sexual
>> >child abuse does no harm. Hmmm - quite a dilemma for them: Admit that
>> >what they publish isn't always true science, or prove themselves guilty
>> >of Marc's accusation of rejecting scientific proof of something when you
>> >disagree with the results. The APA has obviously in this case chosen
>> >the latter. I would say that their credibility has suffered a bit over
>> >this.
>
>> You sure are a bitter person.
>
>Not sure why you say that, other than as a diversion.
Just an observation. Your two choices that you state are both negative.
That is a defeatist attitude. The other possibility is that you
purposefully construed the choices in the most negative light, which would
be intellectually dishonest.
I think it is that you hate the idea so much that you taint all thoughts
you have on the subject. You certainly don't appear to be even attempting
to approach it from a dispassionate view.
>> They didn't hide the study.
>
>Pretend you don't know where that letter is, and try to find it on their
>web site. Go ahead - punch in some key words and see if it comes up.
>Try to find that study using key words. You can't. But they make their
>gay legislative activism pages really easy to find.
That letter isn't the study. It is about the study. There is a
difference. They didn't not publish it to hide it. But when there was an
outcry, they just made a public statement about their stance.
>> They let
>> everyone see it.
>
>Go ahead - try to find it drilling down from their home page. Key words
>in their site's search engine won't turn it up. I wonder why?
http://www.apa.org/releases/csa799.html
I not only found the one you posted, but this other as well with the same
keywords typed in off the homepage.
>> The APA doesn't rule on what is published.
>
>Supposedly what they publish is peer-reviewed science, and therefore,
>according to Lloyd, as science, is indisputable.
Lloyd is a lliar. He lies about what is "science" and has been doing that
for years. He used to post to r.a.d., but stopped when lots of people
would call him a Lliar every time he posted. He claims that consumer
magazines like Consumer Reports are scientifically sound, despite large
amounts of proof to the contrary.
Also, it seems you are confused as to the significance of a study being
scientifically valid. The study could easily be valid, but every
conclusion drawn by the people that did the study could be false. To claim
"scientifically valid" is true for all values of "scientifically valid" is
simply false. Though it is true that most things that are "scientifically
valid" are true (or close enough for practical purposes), that doesn't mean
they all are. And "scientifically valid" applies to the results, not the
conclusions. Again, these are fine points that Lloyd likes to ignore.
Though he is a crappy chemistry professor at a community college, he thinks
he knows more about psychology than all psychologists, more about physics
than all physicists, and more about permafrost than those that live up
north (don't ask, you don't want to know).
>I am simply countering Lloyd's continuing assertion that anything that
>the APA publishes is based on science, and since, in his mind, once
>something that is declared as "science" (as long as the "science" agrees
>with liberal causes) can't be disputed, that I can't question what comes
>out of the APA (APA publishes it; it is scientific; therefore it is
>indisputable; therefore I must be wrong to question it). This study was
>published by the APA. It was peer-reviewed and published as
>scientifically based. Then you indicate that it would be wrong to
>disagree with a "scientific" study just because the results disagree
>with the results one would like to have obtained. Yet, when you read
>the retraction letter of the APA, it is very clear that they are
>denouncing the study with absolutely no scientific basis for denouncing
>it - only that they can't support its conclusions, and they took legal
>measures to ensure that that study can never be used in court to cause a
>ruling in favor of an adult having sex with a minor.
Anyone that thinks "science" is indisputable need only look at global
warming. Every "scientific" study I've read on it disagrees on numerous
points (even those that agree can differ widely on what chemicals have what
effects and the relationship of them to the climate). They can't all be
right...
>My main point is that just because something is labelled science does
>not make it correct or indisputable (and of course everyone - including
>me, including you - says they agree with that. But Lloyd likes to put
>the "science" label on everything that he agrees with so that he can
>claim that it is therefore indisputable.
That's because he suffers from low self esteem. When he owned a Chrysler,
he talked bad about every other make, including Mercedes. Now that he's
renting a Mercedes, he talks bad about every other make, including Chrysler
(even though Mercedes now owns Chrysler).
>> They don't
>> even have to believe it. You seem to think that their credibility is
>> linked to the results of studies. I guess if Car and Driver finds that a
>> Viper is slower than a Corvette in a fair and valid comparison, they
>> shouldn't publish it because it is contrary to what people expect? If they
>> do publish it, would they loose credibility if it was later discovered that
>> there was an undetectable problem with the Viper?
>
>If the "problem" was that the Viper was not actually faster, then yes -
>how would they explain that they "proved" it was faster on the track
>when it wasn't without losing credibility? I think you're proving my
>point with the example.
The results (that the Viper was slower) may be valid. The conclusion (that
Vipers are slower) may be invalid.
The results (the people in college that were molested as children didn't
show significant long-term social problems) may be perfectly valid, while
the conclusion (that molestation doesn't cause long-term ill effects) may
be completely invalid.
I could go into reasons for this. The APA said something to the effect
that they looked at how the measurements were taken and that the data
wasn't fabricated. That makes the methodology valid, even if the study is
flawed in other ways.
>The study in question used bad science (the way they grouped the
>subjects). So maybe there was some attempted sleight-of-hand - yet it
>was peer reviewed, so why wasn't it caught (maybe because the reviewers
>were willing to fudge on the science if the results were as desired?).
Every study can be flawed. A much better way of doing a study of this
nature would be to get the records of all abuse cases reported within a
time period and track down all the abused. However, it is quite possible
that it would be hard to track them all down. It is quite possible that
the names would not even be accessible. It is quite possible that there is
a significant difference in the outcome of the reported cases and the
unreported cases.
Looking only at a college level of subjects, you only get people that
self-report as having been abused. Perhaps the people that didn't want to
report they were abused had different experiences. You only got a small
cross section that you were looking in. Perhaps the only ones that were
studied had a different support structure than the general population of
abused.
I agree that there are significant things that could affect the results.
However, this is a very difficult thing to study, and if you can find no
bias in how the subjects were selected and efforts were made to correct (or
even just measure) the possible differences between the test population and
the general population, then it should be able to pass review. However,
details of this nature aren't on any of the web sites or among the
information posted here, so I don't know how it dealt with possible bias in
the selection.
>> I guess you'd prefer they do the former and hide anything they don't like.
>
>By the former - meaning state that what they publish isn't true
>science? (as far as hiding anything they don't like - I don't konw -
>maybe they do that, but I didn't list that as an option) Hey - it's not
>my dilemma to resolve - I didn't create it. You were the one that said
>that it would be wrong to discard "science" if the science disagreeed
>with your desired results - yet that's what they did. I'm just the
>messenger - you make the call - you tell me which way you want it -
>doesn't matter to me.
I don't see how they discarded it. They stated that they disagreed with
the conclusions. That is different.
>> Is that the Conservative way?
>>
>> >Perhaps they will test the waters again in 5 or 10 years on the subject
>> >to see if the American public is ready for the "next step". I'm sure
>> >their colleagues at the NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association
>> >- I didn't make that up - there is such an organization) will send them
>> >the right signals when they think they've adequately paved the way for
>> >their advocacy "science" and legislative pushes.
>> >
>> >Oh - and Lloyd - the "research" and published article were done by
>> >people in the Psych department of Temple U.
>>
>> I read it. It seems that the focus was on the lasting effects. That is,
>> can people who have been molested recover to live normal lives. The answer
>> was yes (according to the study, which I haven't studied).
>
>So a "scientific" study shows that there's no real harm to those lives.
No. That's not what it shows. It shows that there aren't measurable
long-term effects. Just because they get married at the same ages as
others doesn't mean it doesn't affect them.
>Sorry - I disagree, and I don't need a study to tell me that.
And the Earth is flat, and you don't need no stinkin' science to tell you
otherwise?
If "science" says that something you believe is wrong, you certainly don't
drop all your beliefs for that one study, but if you don't even look at
what they did in an objective manner, then you are close minded.
>APA's
>peer-reviewed "scientific" studies have no credibility with me.
>"Science" can be faked - I've seen it done.
I've seen it too. However, it is simply foolish to assume that everything
you don't like or disagrees with your personal opinion is faked.
>> You take that
>> "yes" and use it as an excuse to claim that molestation isn't bad.
>
>And the APA seems to think they have to denounce it for that very
>reason. Are they saying that the study was not good science?
No. I'd have to say that they were living in fear of people like you. The
people that get so emotionally involved in the subject that they can't or
won't look at it objectively. You admit that you dismiss it before looking
at the methodology. You don't care. There is nothing that can be
presented that will prevent you from thinking it is faked or whatever it is
you think if it. You've made up your decision before even reading it.
So, they need to address the people that react before they even understand
what it is that they are reacting to.
>Seems I've been hearing rumors of moves afoot to lower the age of
>consent to something like 11 years old or something?.
I've never heard that. The "reforms" I've been hearing were in response to
laws that make consensual sex between a 14 year old boy and a 16 year old
girl defined as the boy raping the girl. There are many places where the
gender is tied to the laws. A 14 year old boy can legally have sex with an
adult woman (not rape, but sometimes prosecuted as "contributing to the
delinquency" or something like that) but a 14 year old girl can not legally
have sex with anyone.
There is no age of consent for the country. It is dependant on local laws.
Perhaps it is only in your state where there is any movement for changes of
that nature.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
