Brad Hudson wrote:The fact that a study is promoted by an interested group is irrelevant to the validity of the study. That can largely be determined by looking at sample size, subgroup size, the methodology for obtaining the sample, and examination of the potential for bias to affect the result. Advocacy groups will always use what they think is a helpful study to promote their point of view -- but that does not affect the study itself. People's anecdotal experience also doesn't invalidate the studies. There is a reason for the oft-used phrase "the plural of anecdote is not data." People's real world experience is not a reliable indicator of how people behave in general -- a properly done study is very much more reliable.
As for what can be done with the studies: they proved very helpful in the litigation over Prop 8 in California to show that there is no reasonable basis for limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex.
I disagree, but my disagreement comes from my own background in statistics and having litigated statistical studies. So much depends upon the way survey questions are phrased and the way the report is written up. I don't think much of these kind of social statistical studies any more. So, while I like and applaud BC's report, there are reports that rebut it.
Brad Hudson wrote:The fact that a study is promoted by an interested group is irrelevant to the validity of the study. That can largely be determined by looking at sample size, subgroup size, the methodology for obtaining the sample, and examination of the potential for bias to affect the result. Advocacy groups will always use what they think is a helpful study to promote their point of view -- but that does not affect the study itself. People's anecdotal experience also doesn't invalidate the studies. There is a reason for the oft-used phrase "the plural of anecdote is not data." People's real world experience is not a reliable indicator of how people behave in general -- a properly done study is very much more reliable.
As for what can be done with the studies: they proved very helpful in the litigation over Prop 8 in California to show that there is no reasonable basis for limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex.
I disagree, but my disagreement comes from my own background in statistics and having litigated statistical studies. So much depends upon the way survey questions are phrased and the way the report is written up. I don't think much of these kind of social statistical studies any more. So, while I like and applaud BC's report, there are reports that rebut it.
The wording of the questions is part of examining the potential for bias to affect the result. That some are poorly done does not, in my opinion, warrant wholesale rejection of all. Or, even worse, equating them all as equally bad. For the reasons discussed above, there is nothing to applaud about bcs's citation of the study -- the methodology is fatally flawed.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Somehow I think the success lies in having a stable family relationship, with no turnover of parents (i.e., divorce or separation) plus a religious environment or some equivalent one which installs strong moral values. Many of my Jewish and Islamic friends seem to possess those characteristics in their families. As well as Mormon and Evangelical friends. My atheist friends, I observe, not so much.
My goodness! Either Yahoo Bot doesn't have any Catholic friends, or else he rates them right down there with us evil atheists as failures in childrearing.
(Making that joke is perhaps preferable to the alternative post that suggested itself about my likely failure to instil (I think he really meant that word) strong moral values in my kids. I do so hate bad language.)
Well, at least my kids have a tendency to tell the truth, and perhaps may even continue to do so when posting on message boards. Unlike some.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Yahoo Bot wrote:Somehow I think the success lies in having a stable family relationship, with no turnover of parents (i.e., divorce or separation) plus a religious environment or some equivalent one which installs strong moral values. Many of my Jewish and Islamic friends seem to possess those characteristics in their families. As well as Mormon and Evangelical friends. My atheist friends, I observe, not so much.
Later he says
I disagree, but my disagreement comes from my own background in statistics and having litigated statistical studies.
I find it fascination that you promote a conclusion you reached based upon your own personal observation of a few families, yet in the very next breath profess to have superior knowlege about statistical modeling.
Jaybear wrote:I find it fascination that you promote a conclusion you reached based upon your own personal observation of a few families, yet in the very next breath profess to have superior knowlege about statistical modeling.
Nope. I know that anecdotal evidence counts for nothing. I believe that atheists aren't going to be as good parents as religious parents, but I believe that on the basis of my belief in the formative benefits of religion -- at least most successful religions -- and not on the basis of any statistical study. So my opinion, thus, carries no weight in the court of academic opinion.
But I also have little faith in sociological studies based upon statistical modeling, only because I question the ability to structure properly a survey question. I have faith in statistics, to be sure, but not so much in sociological studies.
Chap wrote:Well, at least my kids have a tendency to tell the truth, and perhaps may even continue to do so when posting on message boards. Unlike some.
I don't think that I've ever insulted you or treated you in an evil matter. I could be wrong; it has been so many years, but today that is my belief. You're a good guy sticking up for Mr. Eric.
My post on this thread did not address truth telling or lying, I do believe.
Yahoo Bot wrote: I don't think much of these kind of social statistical studies any more. So, while I like and applaud BC's report, there are reports that rebut it.
So let me get this straight. You don't believe in these kind of reports but you like and applaud BC's report. Also you've completely failed to address the problems listed above with this particular study. So why do you like and applaud it again? Oh right, because it says gays are likely to molest people. I guess if it helps your belief the ends justify the means.
Yahoo Bot wrote: I don't think much of these kind of social statistical studies any more. So, while I like and applaud BC's report, there are reports that rebut it.
So let me get this straight. You don't believe in these kind of reports but you like and applaud BC's report. Also you've completely failed to address the problems listed above with this particular study. So why do you like and applaud it again? Oh right, because it says gays are likely to molest people. I guess if it helps your belief the ends justify the means.
I disagree with the report's methodology. I applaud it because it presents the other side's views with some sort of reasoned methodology, disagreeable or not, so at least we have some cogent discourse going on. My personal view is that it doesn't matter if parents are gay or straight (or single for that matter), but it matters if the parental relationship isn't stable, and it matters if they aren't religious.
