Scientific thought. Definitely not social sciences pt 2.

[gourimoko]

@gourimoko

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilear...l_in_the_1960s_the_sugar_industry_paid_three/

This is an example in which they knowingly engaged in foulplay, but im sure its not the only one.

Right.. you can find similar examples with respect to climate change denial, tobacco, chemicals in food, etc.

What i believe more commonly happens is people start with a premise, confirm their biases, peer review their own papers between people of the same beliefs or agendas and theyll build from that.

From my own personal observation in academia, that does not happen in reputable science very often, Dave. Especially with respect to "hard" science. So I'm curious as to what makes you think this is commonplace?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

What i believe more commonly happens is people start with a premise, confirm their biases, peer review their own papers between people of the same beliefs or agendas and theyll build from that.

I believe that is the rule far more than the exception when it comes to social science that involves advocacy.

 

[David.]

Right.. you can find similar examples with respect to climate change denial, tobacco, chemicals in food, etc.



From my own personal observation in academia, that does not happen in reputable science very often, Dave. Especially with respect to "hard" science. So I'm curious as to what makes you think this is commonplace?

This is the problem though, i dont want to use topics i know you and i are going to disagree on. Ill just choose one that i dont care much about but have a bse of knowledge on.

Im familiar with bill nye and appeal to authority and ad hominem fallacies, so im not using his story as any benchmark of how correct he is in regards to say, gender. I do believe hes using the margins to push an agenda. There is a parallel with this and the topic im actually curious about so ill use this.

It seems like he's playing a game with definitions and pushing his "science" on the lay person. Without a complete understanding of the topics, and who he is and what his politics are, people are going to draw a snopes conclusion. They just want to be spoon fed. The truth is muddied, and then other scientists could use his conclusions (which in this case are more political than true) to do more research with axioms that arent grounded in scientific truth, but rather politics.

 

[gourimoko]

This is the problem though, i dont want to use topics i know you and i are going to disagree on. Ill just choose one that i dont care much about but have a bse of knowledge on.

If we're both able to be rational, then, it shouldn't matter if we agree on the findings of the study right? We're not discussing biblical verses but the validity of various scientific studies, no?

Im familiar with bill nye and appeal to authority and ad hominem fallacies, so im not using his story as any benchmark of how correct he is in regards to say, gender. I do believe hes using the margins to push an agenda.

I'm not sure what you mean by "using the margins" but Nye is quite open about "pushing an agenda." He's a science advocate.

There is a parallel with this and the topic im actually curious about so ill use this.

Okay.

It seems like he's playing a game with definitions and pushing his "science" on the lay person. Without a complete understanding of the topics, and who he is and what his politics are, people are going to draw a snopes conclusion.

You mean, they'll trust him because of his brand and name recognition, without doing their own research?

They just want to be spoon fed.

Of course; I'd agree with this 100%.

The truth is muddied, and then other scientists could use his conclusions (which in this case are more political than true) to do more research with axioms that arent grounded in scientific truth, but rather politics.

Just so that I understand you; can you give me some examples of what Nye has said that would be more political than true; with respect to specific scientific "conclusions?"

I don't ask in an attempt to test the truthiness of what you're saying; but to just try and understand what you mean, and what you view as "muddied" or "more political" that Nye, specifically, is pushing as "science."

 

[David.]

I

If we're both able to be rational, then, it shouldn't matter if we agree on the findings of the study right? We're not discussing biblical verses but the validity of various scientific studies, no?



I'm not sure what you mean by "using the margins" but Nye is quite open about "pushing an agenda." He's a science advocate.



Okay.



You mean, they'll trust him because of his brand and name recognition, without doing their own research?



Of course; I'd agree with this 100%.



Just so that I understand you; can you give me some examples of what Nye has said that would be more political than true; with respect to specific scientific "conclusions?"

I don't ask in an attempt to test the truthiness of what you're saying; but to just try and understand what you mean, and what you view as "muddied" or "more political" that Nye, specifically, is pushing as "science."

lll look around. Ive only seen snippets of the netflix show. I understand your point, these arent necessarily scientifc claims hes making, hes trying to send a message.

I know how much you respect science, and im just getting hit with a barrage of really unhealthy results and misinformed conclusions based on what appears to be political science, which people are conflating with actual science.

Example, im engaged in a thread where a judge has refused to hear cases for same sex adoptive parents. I dont know if ge has legal ground and i absolutely understand the implied MORAL argument coming from popular opinion: why should it matter? And why should it matter what parents have between their legs?

Well, the science matters. Theres empirical evidence that there simply are inherent differences between men and women and in outcome of being raised without one or the other parent. Each parent represents something different to each child. They are both vital to a childs well being. This is a politically incorrect position to take, but ive done that research. It seems like we cant address that consequence honestly because of the core underlying issue, and its potential effect on things like same sex adoption.

Thats more soft science. Im still fishing for a hard science example. Its possible there isnt one, i understand that theres nuance in these situations and one thing. Doesnt mean its refuting another.



Heres another one i dont care about. Abortion argument. Im pro choice, just so all the cards are on the table. I am more for individual liberty and against the negative economic ramifications of births into unhealthy situations than i am for the prolife argument. But its hard to say thats not life.

If its just a bundle of cells, youre just a bundle of cells. If that many cells are bundled on mars, we'd conclude we've discovered life on mars. The societal arguments aside, ehat is the scientific answer and how are we not ignoring it and playing games with words if we are legalizing abortion, regardless of how justified the ends are?

 

[gourimoko]

lll look around. Ive only seen snippets of the netflix show. I understand your point, these arent necessarily scientifc claims hes making, hes trying to send a message.

I know how much you respect science, and im just getting hit with a barrage of really unhealthy results and misinformed conclusions based on what appears to be political science, which people are conflating with actual science.

Example, im engaged in a thread where a judge has refused to hear cases for same sex adoptive parents. I dont know if ge has legal ground and i absolutely understand the implied MORAL argument coming from popular opinion: why should it matter? And why should it matter what parents have between their legs?

Well, the science matters. Theres empirical evidence that there simply are inherent differences between men and women and in outcome of being raised without one or the other parent. Each parent represents something different to each child. They are both vital to a childs well being. This is a politically incorrect position to take, but ive done that research. It seems like we cant address that consequence honestly because of the core underlying issue, and its potential effect on things like same sex adoption.

Thats more soft science. Im still fishing for a hard science example. Its possible there isnt one, i understand that theres nuance in these situations and one thing. Doesnt mean its refuting another.

Dave, with respect to your example; I think you may be potentially confusing the concept of science, which draws conclusions based on the scientific method, with simple observation (i.e., 'empirical evidence), as well as confusing it with approximations and guesswork based on observation (drawing conclusions without rigorous scientific testing).

With that said, let's work with the example here for a moment, since it's interesting and a topic I've discussed here before. Let me ask you this: what reputable scientific research demonstrates that a child's well being is dependent upon having parents of the opposite gender? Politics aside; I know of no such reputable scientific conclusion. Moreover, I would assert that the scientific consensus on this topic is actually the opposite of what you state here.

(The words bolded and italicized are important:
The scientific method, scientific consensus, peer-review, reputability of journals and their process; these are form a basis for us to draw some reasonable basis of validity for the works we're relying on. Ignoring these factors means that laymen can be duped into believing an opinion is scientific simply because it's cited/published. Just as you indicated up-thread, publication itself doesn't mean a conclusion is scientific.)

However, with that said, I do know of Mark Regnerus and his 'work' on this subject.. I've read his studies and I wrote about them on this site before.. Here's a breakdown as to why you should ignore his work as it is not serious:

Spoiler

Gourimoko (2016):
First off, it's not from Nature, or the APA, or any peer-reviewed journal; it's from the Heritage Foundation - or, as their tagline suggests, "the Trusted Conservative Leader." This is objective, how? It's essentially a conservative apologist media outlet that funds "studies" that are generally not peer-reviewed, in order to give something worthwhile (seemingly) to cite by conservative commentators and policymakers.

Now, go back and re-read that last sentence I just said.. Here, I'll say it again, "it is essentially a conservative apologist media outlet that funds "studies" that are generally not peer-reviewed, in order to give something worthwhile (seemingly) to cite by conservative commentators and policymakers."

Here, someone might say "you're just a lib saying crazy stuff..." Bear with me for a moment and let's actually get into the meat of the article.

The article itself is a rebuttal to the consensus medical opinion that there is no evidence suggesting same-sex married couples are any less equipped to raise children. The article affirmatively cites two actual "studies," (1) "New Family Structures Study," by the now-infamous Dr. Mark Regnerus; and (2) "Emotional Problems Among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition," by Donald Paul Sullins, a Catholic Priest working out of a Catholic university.

The first issue here is that the article disingenuously avoids the topic with the first citation.

The Regnerus study is considered one of the most flawed and even academically unethical studies conducted on this issue, or in general, within the recent history of the social sciences. It is not considered a credible source of information, nor does the study even address the topics that conservatives cite it for since it doesn't actually track married same-sex couples with children.

This issue, with Regnerus' study, has been known for years, and given the author of the Heritage article surely knows about these issues at the time of publication, yet fails to mention them; it can be surmised that there exists a desire to obfuscate and conceal the fact that this is not a legitimate or credible academic study.

The second study, by Paul Sullins,is essentially just an extension of the first. For one, the two are treated as different studies by two different people/research groups. But that assertion is actually misleading; Mark Regnerus oversaw the Sullins study. The second study was essentially an extension of the first. Moreover, making matter infinitely worse, to avoid having their "in-depth" study rejected, Regnerus and Sullins published the study in the bogus British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science.

What do I mean by bogus?
The journal in question is a scam, it's not a real medical or social sciences journal at all.

Reasons:
1) The journal is in no way British. It's Egyptian-owned and financed, and operated and run from India.

2) The name of the publication was originally the British Journal of Educational Research, this was specifically meant to be inconspicuously confused with the prestigious British Education Research Journal. BJER vs BERJ.

3) After being threatened about the name; the journal changed their name to the British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science.

4) Several professors at University of Michigan, NYU, and Mark Donoghue from the British Educational Research Association called out the scam.

Sullins and Regnerus and the author of the Heritage Foundation article, Jamie Bryan Hall, all very likely know this.. Just as I know this.. Just as anyone actually in academia would know this if they spent two seconds reading the published work.

With that said, here is a snippet from Wikipedia regarding Regnerus' work on this topic:

Spoiler

Regnerus has conducted research on the impact of a child having a parent who has been involved in a same-sex relationship. A 2012 population-based study of his in Social Science Research[9] generated protracted debate and controversy.[10][11]

This included a disavowal by Regnerus' department chair at the University of Texas-Austin, in which Christine L. Williams cites the American Sociological Association, "which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families."[12] Two hundred social scientists, led by Gary Gates, signed the "Letter to the editors and advisory editors of Social Science Research",[13] in which they express their concern "about the academic integrity of the peer review process for this paper as well as its intellectual merit."[14] Regnerus continues to defend the research.[15][16]

The controversy also resulted in an audit of the review process used by Social Science Research.[17] Critics have largely focused their attention on the few same-sex relationships in the data, faulting Regnerus for comparing the adult children of intact (heterosexual) families with those whose parents may have purportedly formed same sex relationships after the dissolution of a heterosexual union.[18][19]

In June 2012, 27 scholars signed a response to the Regnerus Controversy in defense of Regnerus' research, stating: "we think much of the public and academic response to Regnerus is misguided for three reasons."[20] They also argue that "it is possible to interpret Regnerus’s findings as evidence for the need for legalized gay marriage, in order to support the social stability of such relationships," which contrasts with Regnerus' own conclusion published in Slate: "[this study] may suggest that the household instability that the NFSS reveals is just too common among same-sex couples to take the social gamble of spending significant political and economic capital to esteem and support this new (but tiny) family form".[21]

Major academic organizations including the American Sociological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association dispute the validity of Regnerus' data and conclusions reached thereof, arguing that unlike previous studies, the statistically tiny number of same sex couples in a study whose sample group largely consisted of failed heterosexual marriages where one of the parents was allegedly homosexual, make it impossible to extrapolate any information about same sex parenting. A review carried out by the American Medical Association noted that:[18]

... The data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.”[18]

Some argue that the project's funding source, the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative think tank, ultimately biased the results;[22][23] New York Times writer Mark Oppenheimer speculated that Regnerus' Catholic faith may have shaped the way he approached the study of same-sex relationships.[10] When asked whether his funding source (the Witherspoon Institute) is conservative, Regnerus responded by stating, "Yes. And the Ford Foundation is a pretty liberal one. Every academic study is paid for by someone. I’ve seen excellent studies funded by all sorts of interest groups."[24]

Regnerus contributed to an amicus brief in opposition to same-sex marriage[25] and appeared as an expert witness in a 2014 federal court hearing regarding Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. Citing widespread criticism of NFSS methodology, Judge Bernard A. Friedman rejected Regnerus' testimony, alleging the arguments derived from methodologically flawed data were "not worthy of serious consideration" and served rather to please the conservative organizations (Witherspoon Institute and Bradley Foundation) that underwrote the survey research project.[26]

The public and academic reaction to Regnerus' research has been referred to as a "witch hunt" by his former mentor Christian Smith.[27][28] In his book The Sacred Project of American Sociology, Smith calls this backlash a result of the content of sociology's "sacred project" (of mitigating oppression, inequality, etc.); Smith argued that the critical reaction e.g. on methodological issues displayed a set of double standards insofar as work by other scholars could be (but is generally not) subjected to similar criticism.[29] Smith said that "The push-back" to Regnerus' article "is coming simply because some people don't like where the data led."

 

[gourimoko]

Had to break this up due to the spoiler tag citations:

Now, let's re-evaluate this for a moment...

What is the scientific consensus on this particular issue of same-sex parenting?

At present, the consensus is that there is no appreciable difference. Are their conflicting studies? Yes. Are those studies, those most cited (see above), reputable? No.

So Dave, remember when you said:
"https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilear...l_in_the_1960s_the_sugar_industry_paid_three/

This is an example in which they knowingly engaged in foulplay, but im sure its not the only one. What i believe more commonly happens is people start with a premise, confirm their biases, peer review their own papers between people of the same beliefs or agendas and theyll build from that."

And I wholehearted agreed, and cited other issues like climate change?

This is an example of that... Like.. an exact example.

Which, as your OP gets back to: who can we trust?

Well... we shouldn't trust non-peer reviewed, poorly sourced, scientific works by folks who will literally cite God as a premise in their argument (I shit you not).

This is why it's not the conclusion of Regnerus' work, but the methodology.. He didn't follow the scientific method to test his hypothesis; he formulated a study that would give him an expected result -- i.e., measuring unmarried couples vs married couples (because: of course gays can't get married, and shouldn't be able to (paraphrasing Regnerus himself))

Heres another one i dont care about. Abortion argument. Im pro choice, just so all the cards are on the table. I am more for individual liberty and against the negative economic ramifications of births into unhealthy situations than i am for the prolife argument. But its hard to say thats not life.

I'm pro-choice too... and I'm pro-choice because I assert that being moderately pro-choice is the most rational (i.e., based in reason and science) and also the most ethical position (balancing what we know, vs what we don't, and weighing those two for the greatest moral good).

With that said, I'm going to say something here that you might not expect:

If I could be convinced that a first-trimester fetus was a living, thinking person.. A whole person that was self-aware and sentient (what we would consider prerequisites for personhood); then I would be pro-life. But since science tells us this is not the case, then I can't rationally conclude that such a "bundle of cells" be protected under the law as a person.

With that said, I don't think the scientific argument (or the political one for that matter) is that it's not life; but that it does not constitute a living thinking person.

The affirmative political argument is completely different and I'm not really getting into that as it's a privacy issue, rather than a scientific one.

However, I think it's important to point out that one can construct an ethically consistent framework that a first-term abortion does not destroy a thinking, living person; because no such person, cognitively, has formed yet. I think such a framework is far more common than not, even among people who would term an early pregnancy as carrying "a baby."

And yet even though I think such an argument is grounded in reason and science, such an argument becomes weaker as time passes and actual consciousness (what makes you a person) begins to form.

If its just a bundle of cells, youre just a bundle of cells.

Right. We're just bundles of cells, this is true.

If that many cells are bundled on mars, we'd conclude we've discovered life on mars.

If 1 cell were found on Mars, we'd have found 'life' on Mars.

The question is, whether or not we'd found 'intelligent' life on Mars. The answer to that question would be no. Your skin cells are not "people."

The societal arguments aside, ehat is the scientific answer

Well sure Dave; but, are we really talking about the same things here?

While we're all bundles of cells, the one thing that is different about us, versus any other bundle of cells, is that we have an emergent consciousness. We think, therefore, we are. This cannot be said for all life; only life that has consciousness. This is why we value life upon the basis of the recognized degree of cognitive ability. This is why we feel empathy towards animals and not plants, even though both are -equally- qualified as lifeforms, one thinks and one doesn't.

The scientific answer, which I would assert is the logical answer, is that we as a society assign "personhood" onto thinking, living people.

Hypothetically, if you have a parent whom unfortunately is determined to be braindead after some trauma, stroke, accident, etc; then the vast majority of people who consider the ethical choice to terminate their "life" since there isn't a person "there." They've passed.. Ethically, we would assert that to end this "life" is ethically acceptable because, what makes them person is no longer functioning.

Thus, scientifically, the question becomes: when does personhood begin? Or more usefully, at what point in the development of a fetus can we no longer be sure that no living, thinking person actually exists in the womb? Because if a person has not formed and manifested, then what are we really talking about?

and how are we not ignoring it and playing games with words if we are legalizing abortion, regardless of how justified the ends are?

Well, the "ends" wouldn't be ethically justified if we were actually committing infanticide to get to those ends.

The problem here is that you've constructed an ethical framework which I think is logically inconsistent.

That is to say, you've asserted that the termination of any form human life is equivalent to murder; which I think is demonstrably false considering we shed, discard, destroy human cells regularly, as a natural part of our day-to-day lives.

 

[David.]

Dave, with respect to your example; I think you may be potentially confusing the concept of science, which draws conclusions based on the scientific method, with simple observation (i.e., 'empirical evidence), as well as confusing it with approximations and guesswork based on observation (drawing conclusions without rigorous scientific testing).

With that said, let's work with the example here for a moment, since it's interesting and a topic I've discussed here before. Let me ask you this: what reputable scientific research demonstrates that a child's well being is dependent upon having parents of the opposite gender? Politics aside; I know of no such reputable scientific conclusion. Moreover, I would assert that the scientific consensus on this topic is actually the opposite of what you state here.

(The words bolded and italicized are important:
The scientific method, scientific consensus, peer-review, reputability of journals and their process; these are form a basis for us to draw some reasonable basis of validity for the works we're relying on. Ignoring these factors means that laymen can be duped into believing an opinion is scientific simply because it's cited/published. Just as you indicated up-thread, publication itself doesn't mean a conclusion is scientific.)

However, with that said, I do know of Mark Regnerus and his 'work' on this subject.. I've read his studies and I wrote about them on this site before.. Here's a breakdown as to why you should ignore his work as it is not serious:

Spoiler

Gourimoko (2016):
First off, it's not from Nature, or the APA, or any peer-reviewed journal; it's from the Heritage Foundation - or, as their tagline suggests, "the Trusted Conservative Leader." This is objective, how? It's essentially a conservative apologist media outlet that funds "studies" that are generally not peer-reviewed, in order to give something worthwhile (seemingly) to cite by conservative commentators and policymakers.

Now, go back and re-read that last sentence I just said.. Here, I'll say it again, "it is essentially a conservative apologist media outlet that funds "studies" that are generally not peer-reviewed, in order to give something worthwhile (seemingly) to cite by conservative commentators and policymakers."

Here, someone might say "you're just a lib saying crazy stuff..." Bear with me for a moment and let's actually get into the meat of the article.

The article itself is a rebuttal to the consensus medical opinion that there is no evidence suggesting same-sex married couples are any less equipped to raise children. The article affirmatively cites two actual "studies," (1) "New Family Structures Study," by the now-infamous Dr. Mark Regnerus; and (2) "Emotional Problems Among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition," by Donald Paul Sullins, a Catholic Priest working out of a Catholic university.

The first issue here is that the article disingenuously avoids the topic with the first citation.

The Regnerus study is considered one of the most flawed and even academically unethical studies conducted on this issue, or in general, within the recent history of the social sciences. It is not considered a credible source of information, nor does the study even address the topics that conservatives cite it for since it doesn't actually track married same-sex couples with children.

This issue, with Regnerus' study, has been known for years, and given the author of the Heritage article surely knows about these issues at the time of publication, yet fails to mention them; it can be surmised that there exists a desire to obfuscate and conceal the fact that this is not a legitimate or credible academic study.

The second study, by Paul Sullins,is essentially just an extension of the first. For one, the two are treated as different studies by two different people/research groups. But that assertion is actually misleading; Mark Regnerus oversaw the Sullins study. The second study was essentially an extension of the first. Moreover, making matter infinitely worse, to avoid having their "in-depth" study rejected, Regnerus and Sullins published the study in the bogus British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science.

What do I mean by bogus?
The journal in question is a scam, it's not a real medical or social sciences journal at all.

Reasons:
1) The journal is in no way British. It's Egyptian-owned and financed, and operated and run from India.

2) The name of the publication was originally the British Journal of Educational Research, this was specifically meant to be inconspicuously confused with the prestigious British Education Research Journal. BJER vs BERJ.

3) After being threatened about the name; the journal changed their name to the British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science.

4) Several professors at University of Michigan, NYU, and Mark Donoghue from the British Educational Research Association called out the scam.

Sullins and Regnerus and the author of the Heritage Foundation article, Jamie Bryan Hall, all very likely know this.. Just as I know this.. Just as anyone actually in academia would know this if they spent two seconds reading the published work.

With that said, here is a snippet from Wikipedia regarding Regnerus' work on this topic:

Spoiler

Regnerus has conducted research on the impact of a child having a parent who has been involved in a same-sex relationship. A 2012 population-based study of his in Social Science Research[9] generated protracted debate and controversy.[10][11]

This included a disavowal by Regnerus' department chair at the University of Texas-Austin, in which Christine L. Williams cites the American Sociological Association, "which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families."[12] Two hundred social scientists, led by Gary Gates, signed the "Letter to the editors and advisory editors of Social Science Research",[13] in which they express their concern "about the academic integrity of the peer review process for this paper as well as its intellectual merit."[14] Regnerus continues to defend the research.[15][16]

The controversy also resulted in an audit of the review process used by Social Science Research.[17] Critics have largely focused their attention on the few same-sex relationships in the data, faulting Regnerus for comparing the adult children of intact (heterosexual) families with those whose parents may have purportedly formed same sex relationships after the dissolution of a heterosexual union.[18][19]

In June 2012, 27 scholars signed a response to the Regnerus Controversy in defense of Regnerus' research, stating: "we think much of the public and academic response to Regnerus is misguided for three reasons."[20] They also argue that "it is possible to interpret Regnerus’s findings as evidence for the need for legalized gay marriage, in order to support the social stability of such relationships," which contrasts with Regnerus' own conclusion published in Slate: "[this study] may suggest that the household instability that the NFSS reveals is just too common among same-sex couples to take the social gamble of spending significant political and economic capital to esteem and support this new (but tiny) family form".[21]

Major academic organizations including the American Sociological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association dispute the validity of Regnerus' data and conclusions reached thereof, arguing that unlike previous studies, the statistically tiny number of same sex couples in a study whose sample group largely consisted of failed heterosexual marriages where one of the parents was allegedly homosexual, make it impossible to extrapolate any information about same sex parenting. A review carried out by the American Medical Association noted that:[18]

... The data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.”[18]

Some argue that the project's funding source, the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative think tank, ultimately biased the results;[22][23] New York Times writer Mark Oppenheimer speculated that Regnerus' Catholic faith may have shaped the way he approached the study of same-sex relationships.[10] When asked whether his funding source (the Witherspoon Institute) is conservative, Regnerus responded by stating, "Yes. And the Ford Foundation is a pretty liberal one. Every academic study is paid for by someone. I’ve seen excellent studies funded by all sorts of interest groups."[24]

Regnerus contributed to an amicus brief in opposition to same-sex marriage[25] and appeared as an expert witness in a 2014 federal court hearing regarding Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. Citing widespread criticism of NFSS methodology, Judge Bernard A. Friedman rejected Regnerus' testimony, alleging the arguments derived from methodologically flawed data were "not worthy of serious consideration" and served rather to please the conservative organizations (Witherspoon Institute and Bradley Foundation) that underwrote the survey research project.[26]

The public and academic reaction to Regnerus' research has been referred to as a "witch hunt" by his former mentor Christian Smith.[27][28] In his book The Sacred Project of American Sociology, Smith calls this backlash a result of the content of sociology's "sacred project" (of mitigating oppression, inequality, etc.); Smith argued that the critical reaction e.g. on methodological issues displayed a set of double standards insofar as work by other scholars could be (but is generally not) subjected to similar criticism.[29] Smith said that "The push-back" to Regnerus' article "is coming simply because some people don't like where the data led."

for expedience, ill just say theres no way to control for every variable. We arent testing the same subjects in alternate universes in which all other things are actually equal.

Ive pinpointed things that have had a significant impact on my development down to the conversation from when i was 8. Zero chance that would ever show up on any study. And i hate this line of conversation because it feels like a cop out, but im just.. Skeptical of any study at this point.

But these studies aside, and i can source inconclusive ones bc thats all we can find if were being honest, thr rest of the basis of knowledge leans to "you dont want to raise a kid without a father or mother." and you can try to tease out gender roles theoretically but good luck.

This is exactly why didnt want to get into specifics of the issues. We moved into dispute over the topic rather than the question of how to verify the research etc.

We can move onto actually discussing the topics, but this was in fact why i made the point several times that i didnt want to get into specifics.


edit: I didnt see your next post, so your first post is taken out of context. but part of my answer is still applicable. one second.

 

[David.]

Had to break this up due to the spoiler tag citations:

Now, let's re-evaluate this for a moment...

What is the scientific consensus on this particular issue of same-sex parenting?

At present, the consensus is that there is no appreciable difference. Are their conflicting studies? Yes. Are those studies, those most cited (see above), reputable? No.

for reasons i stated above, I dont think a definitive answer could ever be concluded. ever. and my answer doesnt change depending on the side to which the consensus leans. You cannot possibly control for all variables. But a foundation of understanding of childhood development that frankly isn't possibly communicated in these studies would push you towards a certain direction on this topic. Ive touched on this in previous posts. A conclusion (which I dont believe is possible) is given. It may or may not be politicized. It likely is, in my opinion. But an understanding of the mechanisms of childhood development would give a lay person an entirely different understanding of the individual components of this topic and consequently would significantly impact interpretation of these studies. The foundation of knowledge of child development leads to intuitive plausibility regarding the well being of a child being better with a mother. Or the well being of a child being worse without a father.

So Dave, remember when you said:
"https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilear...l_in_the_1960s_the_sugar_industry_paid_three/

This is an example in which they knowingly engaged in foulplay, but im sure its not the only one. What i believe more commonly happens is people start with a premise, confirm their biases, peer review their own papers between people of the same beliefs or agendas and theyll build from that."

And I wholehearted agreed, and cited other issues like climate change?

This is an example of that... Like.. an exact example.

Which, as your OP gets back to: who can we trust?

Well... we shouldn't trust non-peer reviewed, poorly sourced, scientific works by folks who will literally cite God as a premise in their argument (I shit you not).

This is why it's not the conclusion of Regnerus' work, but the methodology.. He didn't follow the scientific method to test his hypothesis; he formulated a study that would give him an expected result -- i.e., measuring unmarried couples vs married couples (because: of course gays can't get married, and shouldn't be able to (paraphrasing Regnerus himself))

his bias is evident. just because someone else didnt write something that incendiary of the opposing view, doesnt mean the conflicting study doesnt have roots in bias.

I'm pro-choice too... and I'm pro-choice because I assert that pbeing moderately pro-choice is the most rational (i.e., based in reason and science) and also the most ethical position (balancing what we know, vs what we don't, and weighing those two for the greatest moral good).

With that said, I'm going to say something here that you might not expect:

If I could be convinced that a first-trimester fetus was a living, thinking person.. A whole person that was self-aware and sentient (what we would consider prerequisites for personhood); then I would be pro-life. But since science tells us this is not the case, then I can't rationally conclude that such a "bundle of cells" be protected under the law as a person.

With that said, I don't think the scientific argument (or the political one for that matter) is that it's not life; but that it does not constitute a living thinking person.

vegetative state - they arent intelligent life. I dont believe we have authority to end their life . They are still a person. personhood is not a scientific definition. This is subjectivity, and it seems like motivated nuance. I just looked up when someone of a vegetative state is legally pronounced dead. This looks like a conclusion out of necessity. You have to have an answer because a decision has to be made for financial and legal issues. In the case of abortion, it seems like a conclusion out of politics, to justify a pro choice stance. Im not arguing the validity of 'what something seems like' and how that should effect the validity of policy. im just having an honest conversation. 'thinking' looks like a post hoc qualifier.

its necessary to parse out nuance to form tautology, but i think were looking at this trying to justify being pro choice. Seems a little gamey. There are obvious differences between a skin cell and a human fetus. There are obvious differences between a comatose person with irreparable brain damage and an infant. i believe its life. and if it currently isnt by a markedly qualified definition, it will develop into it, by anyone's definition.

If you take a bullet for someone, you are saving a life. If you hadnt taken action, they would die. If you dont take action to terminate, a person would live. Therefore, you are ending a life.

The question is, whether or not we'd found 'intelligent' life on Mars. The answer to that question would be no.

fair

Your skin cells are not "people."

my skin cells wont develop into people that can dance and play and love or have hurt feelings, nor do they have respiratory systems and other essential vital organs/a nervous sysem.

Hypothetically, if you have a parent whom unfortunately is determined to be braindead after some trauma, stroke, accident, etc; the n the vast majority of people who consider the ethical choice to terminate their "life" since there isn't a person "there." They've passed.. Ethically, we would assert that to end this "life" is ethically acceptable because, what makes them person is no longer functioning.

ethics is an entirely different conversation. i wouldnt even say that termination is necessarily ethically bad if we've both concluded it was in fact life, by both of our definitions. we can come up with an endless amount of examples as to why it would be justified. but these scenarios arent equivalent. one is ending a life already lived and cannot likely continue out of irreversible brain damage (this is written into the legal qualifications) and the other is a political conclusion reached to justify ending a developing childs life, that would (almost) no doubt, result in a living, breathing person.


I dont think these are equivalent scenarios. i think fetuses can feel pain, right? but this fails to address the issue honestly. Again, one is ending a life out of necessity - the body cannot go any further. the brain has stopped working and likely will never function again. In the other scenario, you are PREVENTING life. it largely shares similar characteristics of a person in a vegetative state, BUT it feels pain, and will result in human life. Youre literally deciding when you should pull the plug, bc you have to at some point. you dont 'have to, at some point', end a life or prevent it from developing, depending on a subjective view of what qualifies as life. Or intelligent life, since 'life' isnt good enough to define 'life'. You just have to use science to justify the ethics as best you can to terminate a soon to be born human being.

Well, the "ends" wouldn't be ethically justified if we were actually committing infanticide to get to those ends.

my ethics push boundaries further than yours. ill get to a fun one or two after this. but I meant what i wrote in this instance, I think the end is less life that would be a net negative to society. that is callous and im fine with it.

That is to say, you've asserted that the termination of any form human life is equivalent to murder; which I think is demonstrably false considering we shed, discard, destroy human cells regularly, as a natural part of our day-to-day lives.

i think ending the life of someone in vegetative state who will not return (again, legal qualifications of pulling someone off of life support) is more justified ethically, if we're going down the route of ethics that addresses what happens to the individuals should the decision not be made.

ok, big picture, i think science is used to find similiarities and t differentiate between these scenarios, but I dont think science concludes a moral/ethical outcome. that is still subjective. science denotes life, thats not good enough. we're actually ignoring science, which has decided that it is infact life, to conclude that its ok to end life (because of moral subjectivity)

 

[gourimoko]

for expedience, ill just say theres no way to control for every variable. We arent testing the same subjects in alternate universes in which all other things are actually equal.

You control for the variables by having large samples and repeated experiments. You are looking for statistical trends. Think about it... your goal is not to create a scientific theory with respect to how Joe works, but instead, how people work in a generalized sense and then apply that theory to Joe as well as to Alice and Bob. That's how science works.

Ive pinpointed things that have had a significant impact on my development down to the conversation from when i was 8. Zero chance that would ever show up on any study. And i hate this line of conversation because it feels like a cop out, but im just.. Skeptical of any study at this point.

Skepticism is healthy and warranted, Dave.

But rejection of scientific findings that don't fit a particular narrative or worldview is unhealthy. That would be, if practiced routinely, anti-intellectualism.

But these studies aside, and i can source inconclusive ones bc thats all we can find if were being honest,

Cite studies with respect to what?

Also, just to note on the point of studies being "inconclusive." A single study builds on a body of work within a field. In sciences like sociology, you're unlikely to come across a single study that is groundbreaking and definitive, but instead, a collection of works that demonstrates truth by identifying it over time.

thr rest of the basis of knowledge leans to "you dont want to raise a kid without a father or mother." and you can try to tease out gender roles theoretically but good luck.

Based on what? I would agree with you that having two parents is generally better than having only one, based on what we know. However, I know of nothing that suggests having a "father and mother," i.e., having parents of opposite sex, is preferable for raising a child.

This is kind of what I mean by.. confusing science with guesswork or assumptions based on anecdote. That's not science. We don't have "empirical evidence" that the bolded represents a true statement in the context that you've presented it. With that said, you could be right.. but the scientific consensus today suggest this is false.

You see how this presents a problem if the idea is presented as factual when, it has not been established as such?

This is exactly why didnt want to get into specifics of the issues. We moved into dispute over the topic rather than the question of how to verify the research etc.

If that's the case then that might be on me.. I'm not actually attempting to dispute the topic itself, I'm trying to get to the root of the issue which is how should a person approach critical reasoning with the use of scientific research. With that said, the methodology of the research was discussed in my previous post at some great length, both by myself and with respect to the cited Wiki.

I think the point of my previous post was to point out that Regnerus' work is not scientifically sound, and thus, I used the example of his research to demonstrate what kinds of studies can be thrown out as invalid. Just as you mentioned upthread, and we both agreed regarding poorly executed or agenda-driven publications.

We can move onto actually discussing the topics, but this was in fact why i made the point several times that i didnt want to get into specifics.

Did you read the spoiler tags about my objections to the studies that were most often cited with respect to same-sex parenting?

edit: I didnt see your next post, so your first post is taken out of context. but part of my answer is still applicable. one second.

I see, that makes sense.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

@David. I'm just going to say that as someone who has deposed/examined many experts, to properly vet their methodology, data, and conclusions takes far more effort and background knowledge than is practical on a message board. It sometimes takes having your own expert to consult as well. And even then, sometimes you have two good experts reaching distinctly different conclusions, and neither can be shaken to the point where it is evident to outsiders which one is really correct.

Of course, it is sometimes possible to catch sloppy experts by hanging them with their own methodology statements, but most experts aren't that sloppy.

In terms of social scientists in particular, the biggest commonalities I've seen in terms of the validity of their reports is that they depend greatly on their starting assumptions/definitions, the subjectivity inherent in their choice of metrics, and in how they characterize their observations. You always find the expert's subjectivity buried somewhere in one of those.

 

[gourimoko]

for reasons i stated above, I dont think a definitive answer could ever be concluded. ever. and my answer doesnt change depending on the side to which the consensus leans. You cannot possibly control for all variables.

Can you give me some idea of what you mean by "you cannot possibly control for all variables?"

I think I must be misunderstanding you.

But a foundation of understanding of childhood development that frankly isn't possibly communicated in these studies would push you towards a certain direction on this topic.

Do you think the people conducting these studies are not familiar with childhood development sufficiently to do the research? If they aren't, then I would agree; that is, if they make conclusive statements about the causative associations found in their statistical findings. If, however, they're simply presenting correlations between various groups and outcomes, then that's a different matter - because causation isn't addressed, their field of expertise becomes less relevant. Agreed?

Ive touched on this in previous posts. A conclusion (which I dont believe is possible) is given. It may or may not be politicized. It likely is, in my opinion.

Stop for a second and re-read this paragraph. Ask yourself if you think this is a rational disposition to hold?

So as not to derail onto a tangent, I'll encase a thought-experiment here in spoiler tags to kind of give you an idea as to why this line of reasoning is truly problematic:

Spoiler

Suppose I were to say to you the following:

"I believe Noah was real and the Flood happened."

You retort, demonstrating a well-respected and cited series of studies demonstrating how it's unlikely Noah ever lived (although possible), however, it's almost inconceivable if not totally impossible that the Flood were a true event.

I then respond:
"I don't think that's possible."
"I think you're giving me a politically-correct answer, rather than accepting God's true word."
"I'm entitled to my opinion."

And yet, simultaneously, I would gladly point you to studies done by the Catholic Church (or some religious institution) demonstrating flaws in evolution and the common ancestry of humans and apes.

Would you honestly consider that a rational disposition to hold? More importantly, would you think that I was engaging in actual critical thinking, or, instead, was I simply engaging in (self-)rationalization and personal advocacy, disregarding what was presented as factual in favor of personal worldviews and familiar narratives?

But an understanding of the mechanisms of childhood development would give a lay person an entirely different understanding of the individual components of this topic and would in turn significantly impact consideration of these different studies. The foundation of knowledge of child development leads to intuitive plausibility regarding the well being of a child being better with a mother. Or the well being of a child being worse without a father.

Just to be clear, it sounds as though you are specifically talking about a laymen's understandings of topics using intuition regarding the plausibility of an idea being reality; and that understanding being preferable to a scientific understanding. Am I understanding you correctly?

his bias is evident. just because someone else didnt write something that incendiary of the opposing view, doesnt mean the conflicting study doesnt have roots in bias.

Dave, again; I'm not sure I understand the logic here.

We agree that Regnerus' bias is evident.

However, somehow you've extrapolated the fact that Regnerus is baised to assert an equivalence of bias across the range of studies that are in conflict with Regnerus' conclusions? Doesn't that seem like a false equivalence?

vegatative state - they arent intelligent life. I dont believe we have authority to end their life . They are still a person.

That's interesting...

personhood is not a scientific definition.

This is subjectivity, and it seems like motivated nuance.

Motivated nuance? I'm not sure what you mean by 'motivated nuance.'

I think what I'm talking about here is using scientific means to answer philosophical questions. That is to say, using science to determine the real conditions of a thing, and then making ethical evaluations from our scientific understanding. That, is very much in the realm of science, as well as philosophy.

What we're really trying to do is evaluate the truth of a statement, not the statement "what is a person," but instead, "what are the conditions here, at this point in time, with respect to this human being" and from there answering the underlying question "based on our scientific understanding, is this a person as we have philosophically defined a person to be."

I just looked up when someone of a vegatative state is legally pronounced dead. This looks like a conclusion out of necessity. You have to have an answer because a decision has to be made for financial and legal issues.

Just to be clear, we're talking about two different things. A person can be in a "persistent vegetative state' and not be "brain-dead." Here's a quote from FindLaw with respect to the question that you might find helpful:

"Ventilators, feeding tubes, and other medical technologies have made it much easier to sustain the lives of those with severe brain injuries. But has the law kept pace with medical advances? At what point is an individual legally declared dead? The types of severe brain injuries that raise this difficult question often fall somewhere along the spectrum of persistent vegetative state and brain death. Someone who is medically declared brain dead -- meaning there is zero brain activity -- is legally considered dead."

Would you disagree with the legal definition of death as it relates to brain death, and that personhood is lost at that point?

In the case of abortion, it seems like a conclusion out of politics, to justify a pro choice stance.

Going to put this in spoiler tags, so again, as not to derail the primary conversation, but again, I think this is important to point out to help move along the discussion in a rational way:

Spoiler

Dave... Let's just go back over this post and let me point something out that's no longer just tangential but I think necessary to point out:

1) "A conclusion (which I dont believe is possible) is given. It may or may not be politicized. It likely is, in my opinion. "
2) "This is subjectivity, and it seems like motivated nuance."
3) "This looks like a conclusion out of necessity. You have to have an answer because a decision has to be made for financial and legal issues."
4) "In the case of abortion, it seems like a conclusion out of politics, to justify a pro choice stance."

This.. really seems like you are dismissing any contrary opinions as (politically) "motivated." This, again, resorts to an appeal to motive (a form of ad hominem) on the part of the other person, and is an attack on them rather than their argument. It's .. irrational, you would surely agree right? Am I mistaken, and perhaps I'm just missing something, but.. this seems to be a trend in the thought process here, no?

And the reason I have to point this out is because, entire arguments are dismissed out of hand; and since we cannot evaluate those arguments, we get no closer to the truth - instead, arguing over the potential unknown and hidden biases of various people.

If there were obvious biases, I could totally understand, and I would agree they must be discussed. But to suggest that, as an example, people (like myself) are simply rationalizing a pro-choice ethic to justify a pro-choice stance, while possible, requires more than just the assertion -- you'd need to at least demonstrate how you've come to that conclusion, right?

With that said, I disagree with the assertion. I've explained my own views on abortion, numerous times; and with respect to the scientific understanding of the topic. I say that as someone who originally opposed abortion and then learned a great deal more about the topic as well as the science of the brain. I would also put forward that I don't think these topics are actually 'subjective.'

Im not arguing the validity of 'what something seems like' and how that should effect the validity of policy. im just having an honest conversation. 'thinking' looks like a post hoc qualifier.

I'm not sure what is meant by this? But yes, just trying to have an honest conversation here as well.

its necessary to parse out nuance to form tautology, but i think were looking at this trying to justify being pro choice.

Please see the spoiler tag above. Add the bolded to the list..

With that said, I would ask you to at least consider the previous argument about personhood, when it begins, when it ends, and what defines it. What do we as society consider to be a person, and what don't we. Let's work backwards from there to determine something that makes sense.

Seems a little gamey. There are obvious differences between a skin cell and a human fetus. There are obvious differences between a comatose person with irreparable brain damage and an infant.

Sure... let's talk about some of those differences... then we'll get somewhere.

For example, there isn't much difference between a fully pluripotent stem cell an a zygote within the womb. Prior to week 8-9 of pregnancy, the fetus has no functioning nervous system, let alone any brain function whatsoever (see brain death). However, with that said, there is little to no functional difference in this respect between a 35 week old fetus and a newborn baby.

So again, we can't skip over these kinds of conversations because what you might consider to be meaningless nuance, I would assert actually contains the truth of the matter. Can't hurt to at least investigate the question, right?

 

[gourimoko]

i believe its life. and if it currently isnt by a markedly qualified definition, it will develop into it, by anyone's definition.

No one disagrees that it's alive.. Again, skin cells are "alive," plants are alive. Remember, this was addressed previously. This is why the real question is with respect to personhood, no? Or should all life be equally valued and protected in the same way?

If you take a bullet for someone, you are saving a life. If you hadnt taken action, they would die. If you dont take action to terminate, a person would live. Therefore, you are ending a life.

I like this line of reasoning.. This is good. Let's evaluate this...

p1) If you take a bullet for someone, you are saving a life. (Agreed!)
p2) If you hadn't taken action, they would die. (Okay, given your circumstances, agreed.)
p3) If you don't take action to terminate a pregnancy, a person would live. (Agreed)
c) Therefore, you are ending a life. (hmm)

If you changed your conclusion from "ending a life" to "ending life" then I would agree. The phrase "a life" suggests individuality that has not manifested itself yet. It's not an individual, and that's where I would object to the phrase "ending a life," which might seem pedantic, but I think it gets to the heart of the matter.

The question is again, does this potential life have the same value as a person standing next to you right before being shot?

I would argue no, and thus, if you don't change the phrase of the conclusion or expound on what is meant by "ending a life" then it's hard to agree.

Let me give you a quick thought experiment here:

Given 1000 people, all strangers, are lined up are told to individually enter a dark room with two buttons and a booth. Inside the booth are two clear boxes, one on the left has a young, early 20's-something female college student, and on the right a 10-year old boy. A proposition is posed to the person, one of the two buttons must be pressed, or all 1,002 people in the experiment will die. With that said, it is explained that the left button will complete a consensual and desired abortion of the 8-week old fetus of the female college student on the left; however, pressing the right button will violently poison the 10-year old child in the right booth.

What button should people think to press?

If they refuse, everyone dies. That seems like the worst ethical solution.

Therefore, one would think to press either the left or the right.

The question becomes, are these two choices ethically equivalent? Are they equally abhorrent?

I... don't think so. I'm sure some people might choose to press the right-most button, I wonder how many; but the question really urges you to consider if we're really talking about the same things here.. That is to say, is an 8-week old fetus a person? I agree it likely will become a person, but.. is it a person now?

my skin cells wont develop into people that can dance and play and love or have hurt feelings, nor do they have respiratory systems and other essential vital organs/a nervous sysem.

So, at the point of conception, you have personhood? Because the potential for feelings exists, in a future context, therefore personhood is established in the present context?

If I invest money in the stock market, and I think that I'll earn $1M after 30 years... Can I go in the bank and argue that I have a million dollars? Am I a millionaire?

Lastly, embryonic stem cells... are those people too?

ethics is an entirely different conversation. i wouldnt even say that termination is necessarily ethically bad if we've both concluded it was in fact life, by both of our definitions.

To be clear, we both agree it is life.

we can come up with an endless amount of examples as to why it would be justified. but these scenarios arent equivalent. one is ending a life already lived and cannot likely continue out of irreversible brain damage (this is written into the legal qualifications) and the other is a political conclusion reached to justify ending a developing childs life, that would (almost) no doubt, result in a living, breathing person.

Dave, couple of things...

1) Please see the previous spoiler tag, and add the bolded to it.
1) Do you think a woman getting an abortion is drawing upon a political conclusion?
3) Even if you think I'm rationalizing my own political beliefs, I'm not sure how you can state this while simultaneously ignoring the argument I've presented?
4) I disagree that your position has endless examples that can be justified; in fact, I know of no such examples to exist other than saving the life of the mother.

With respect to the last point here, I don't think you can argue that personhood begins at conception, and then simultaneously argue that, excluding the life of the mother being threatened, that abortion could ever be justified. I've stated in my last post that personhood (and life-threatening circumstances) must define when abortion can and cannot be considered allowable. That's.. not the party platform; but again, that's the most logical and ethical solution that I can see available.

Therefore, if I could reason that personhood began at conception, then abortion should be outlawed. If abortion began at birth, then there should be no limits on abortion. These represent the opposite ends of the spectrum. The truth is likely not in the middle. It is, in my view, where we determine what constitutes a person begins to manifest.

We know that isn't in the first few weeks of pregnancy. It's not in the first trimester. In fact, the cerebral cortex within a fetus doesn't form until 24 weeks into the pregnancy. So, again, at a certain point we have to ask ourselves, what is it that we're talking about? The potential for a person to exist, or a real person? And does potential truly equate to actualized reality? I've never known it to.

I dont think these are equivalent scenarios. i think fetuses can feel pain, right?

Depends on what you mean by "feel" ...

If by feel you mean, experience in a meaningful conscious way? Not until the third trimester, prior to that; no.

If by feel you mean that the fetus can reflexively react to stimulus that results in potential injury? Not until the second trimester.

In the first trimester, the answer is just no.

but this fails to address the issue honestly.

I think it addresses the issue perfectly, but I think you're talking about something that I am not.

Again, one is ending a life out of necessity - the body cannot go any further. the brain has stopped working and likely will never function again. In the other scenario, you are PREVENTING life.

Is "preventing life" equivalent to ending it? Is all life equivalent here? And what makes you argue this is out of necessity? What if money is not a concern?

it largely shares similar characteristics of a person in a vegatative state, BUT it feels pain, and will result in human life.

Again the point being missed is whether or not a person exists in either scenario. I would argue that a person who is braindead is no longer a person. I would further assert that an underdeveloped fetus has yet to become a person. Thus, neither are living people, in the sense of therm used in this context.

Youre literally deciding when you should pull the plug, bc you have to at some point.

And if you didn't have to at some point?

you dont 'have to, at some point', end a life or prevent it from developing, depending on a subjective view of what qualifies as life.

Many people might disagree with this statement. They might assert there are "justifications" for their abortions, regardless of the definition of personhood. I am not making such an argument though, and want to be clear.

Or intelligent life, since 'life' isnt good enough to define 'life'.

Really? We're comparing grass to people? Life isn't at question here. I've said numerous times, fetuses like skin cells, like plankton, like cattle, are "alive." That's not the issue.

You just have to use science to justify the ethics as best you can to terminate a soon to be born human being.

See my previous spoiler tag, add this to the list.

See the problem? Every time it seems like we're getting somewhere, there's this appeal to motive.

For the sake of argument, can you momentarily assume that there exist good intentions and everyone (myself included) isn't just presenting an argument for political reasons and instead presenting said argument dispassionately.

my ethics push boundaries further than yours. ill get to a fun one or two after this. but I meant what i wrote in this instance, I think the end is less life that would be a net negative to society. that is callous and im fine with it.

I'm not sure what you mean here?

i think ending the life of someone in vegatative state who will not return (again, legal qualifications of pulling someone off of life support) is more justified ethically, if we're going down the route of ethics that addresses what happens to the individuals should the decision not be made.

You might be surprised that I agree with you, I don't think it's inherently ethical to terminate a pregnancy, under any circumstances. That doesn't mean it's equivalent to say, killing your own 8-year old son... I think there's a massive difference between these two actions, and that's because they aren't remotely similar.

ok, big picture, i think science is used to find similiarities and t differentiate between these scenarios, but I dont think science concludes a moral/ethical outcome.

Science is used to find the truth. It's really not any simpler than that. We can and should always use truth as a basis for our moral and ethical frameworks. Science doesn't conclude those frameworks, but those frameworks should be entirely grounded within reality, and thus, our scientific understanding.

that is still subjective.

Subjective?

science denotes life, thats not good enough.

No, it isn't.

we're actually ignoring science,

No, we're not. The question isn't whether or not life is present or isn't. The question is whether or not that life is a person or not. That question can be largely informed, based on our understanding of science and human fetal development. This is how we can derive meaningful answers to questions like "does the fetus feel pain?"

which has decided that it is infact life, to conclude that its ok to end life (because of moral subjectivity)

No.

Again, see above; this isn't about "ending life."

 

[David.]

Gouri, appreciate your responses. Ill respond in time, dont want to side track the thread and want to put forth other interesting things. Maybe it can help someone, or someone someone knows.

I dont know how common this is, or exactly what fuse burns out, but maybe it helps someone else. People who get bored with things - jobs, relationships - there are.. a littany of possible causes. In my specific case, it's evident that its a pathology.. theres a certain set of thought processes that are consistent, every time. theres a certain feeling - crescendo up and complete and utter absorption, anxiety of impending downfall, and then metastasis of negative thoughts and envelopment of banausic state of feeling, and burden.

This is really similar to depression, basically.. its not quite that in my case at least, but who cares, this is supposed to be helpful for more typical people/situations.. Ive been researching, hard. You can fuck around with medications all you want, and there is consensus (at least through a decade of erudition at Vanderbilt) that medication and behavioral therapy roughly have the same effects (on basically all different illnesses), but the prescription that will stay with you most is behavioral therapy.. And thats fundamentally saying 'ok, I know, your mom sucked. i care, but we need to be efficient. so your homework is - regardless of why youre feeling what youre feeling and whats going on - to leave your house 5 times and call 2 friends before the next meeting.' Its the idea that your problems will start to solve themselves, partially on their own, but also because your state of feeling will change itself by taking action that builds proteins in your noggin by performing these activities. so your existential crisis is cool and all, but you have two feet and they need to go in order, which is one after the other. so start with a couple baby steps and then keep it up and before you know it, you have momentum.

This just really landed for me.. but basically, when patients suffering from depression are to rate events (going out, playing sports, watching a movie), there'd be a gigantic disconnect between the scores they gave in anticipation of these events vs. how they'd rate them afterwards. So they'd rate basically ANYTHING low, and thats consequence of maladjusted brain chemistry, and then experiencing it was an entirely different world. And then it would propel them to engage in that activity more.

To make that a little more crystallized, in application (for me), a great example is going to the gym. It's been avoided for the last month. It just seemed like a burden. went today and it was invigorating. Like, I 'got it' again. Cant wait to go again. This piece of information makes me feel significantly different about work, which is 1 of the 2 biggest issues in which resolution is an absolute necessity. But this mental block that i've been pushing around, which is seemingly pathological, is the same damned thing. 3 months of 60 hour weeks and then hitting a low is the same damned thing. Its the same job you liked the last 3 months. you feel burdened and lugubrious, sure, but thats fraudulent. Its only mental.. Youre writing down a 2 on paper, and its a 6.5 after you do it.

Theres a couple of things on motivation and procrastination ive got queued up, written by psychotherapists.. But procrastination and avoidance are all components of this exact same mechanism. Deficit of dopamine, which is motivation and pleasure and reward centers, that is.. literally mental. And the answer wtih all of these issues is pretty similar. you just have to start it and shut the fuck about it. just start it. And then you'll snap out of it, like it was just a foggy dream. The only times i''ve pulled myself out of the work doldrums is by doing this. Same with the gym. Same with getting back on track with diet. Same with talking to women after bad break ups. Its all the same damn thing.

heres a couple of fun pictures:

so if youre dreading something, tend to procrastinate etc (and all of this stuff is in the same family, so youll know if its you or not, and if this is helfpul), its just a mental block and you need to just start it. You dont need to finish it, but you need to get the wheels in motion because the only thing thats holding you back is how irrationally awful you think it is.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

@David. This article should be right up your alley. I'd excerpt it but an having trouble copying the text.

Medical Studies are almost always bogus

How many times have you encountered a study — on, say, weight loss — that trumpeted one fad, only to see another study discrediting it a week later?

That’s because many medical studies are junk. It’s an open secret in the research community, and it even has a name: “the reproducibility crisis.”

For any study to have legitimacy, it must be replicated, yet only half of medical studies celebrated in newspapers hold water under serious follow-up scrutiny — and about two-thirds of the “sexiest” cutting-edge reports, including the discovery of new genes linked to obesity or mental illness, are later “disconfirmed.”

Though erring is a key part of the scientific process, this level of failure slows scientific progress, wastes time and resources and costs taxpayers excesses of $28 billion a year, writes NPR science correspondent Richard Harris in his book “Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions” (Basic Books).

“When you read something, take it with a grain of salt,” Harris tells The Post. “Even the best science can be misleading, and often what you’re reading is not the best science....”

....So why are so many tests bogus? Harris has some thoughts.

For one, science is hard. Everything from unconscious bias — the way researchers see their data through the rosy lens of their own theses — to the types of beaker they use or the bedding that they keep mice in can cloud results and derail reproducibility.

Then there is the funding issue. During the heyday of the late ’90s and early aughts, research funding increased until Congress decided to hold funding flat for the next decade, creating an atmosphere of intense, some would say unhealthy, competition among research scientists. Now only 17 percent of grants get funded (compared to a third three decades ago). Add this to the truly terrible job market for post-docs — only 21 percent land tenure track jobs — and there is a greater incentive to publish splashy counterintuitive studies, which have a higher likelihood of being wrong, writes Harris.

One effect of this “pressure to publish” situation is intentional data manipulation, where scientists cherry-pick the information that supports a hypothesis while ignoring the data that doesn’t — an all too common problem in academic research, writes Harris.

“There’s a constant scramble for research dollars. Promotions and tenure depend on making splashy discoveries. There are big rewards for being first, even if the work ultimately fails the test of time,” writes Harris.

http://nypost.com/2017/05/06/medical-studies-are-almost-always-bogus/

And to go along with the point I made earlier, it is virtually impossible for those of us on the outside to properly vet such studies. And if you consider that some studies have a deliberate bias in favor of a certain result, and reproduction may only be attempted by those with similar biases, the reliability of any study that may be associated with an agenda is doubtful.