Well there is a time for all good things to end. This blog has been a great experience. However, I have gotten an opportunity to blog with a group of Christian sociologists. It is a good match for me and so I have agreed to join them. I will start blogging in July on the first and third Saturdays of the month. I hope you will join me there.
You may wonder if I am going to keep my name "trouble-maker." The answer is no. It was the right name for this solitary blog. But I will be working with other scholars and they may see such a label and non-professional. So I guess I have to grow up a little. But make no mistake about it, I will still be causing some trouble. My willingness to question what others do not want to talk about will remain.
So this will be my final sign-off for this blog. I will leave it up for the time being. But you can follow me at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/ if you want to keep up with my work. It has been a pleasure blogging on my own and now I look forward to joining this team.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker (for the last time)
Monday, June 25, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Science and Politics - A Bad Mix
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/06/gay_parents_are_they_really_no_different_.html
I am a scientist. But this is why many people, myself included, are skeptical about science. For years we have been hearing that same-sex parents are no different than other parents. This has been the rallying cry for same-sex adoption. Yet as pointed out in this link it was very flawed research that generated such findings. No matter. It was the PC finding that was wanted and so forget the flaws.
Then Dr. Regnerus uses a superior sampling technique (I will save you from boredom from going into the details why this technique is superior to the nonprobability samples used before) and finds that may a difference. You would have thought the world was coming to an end. Check out the type of comments that are left for the article. These are not scientific comments. they are political comments masquerading as scientific comments. If they were truly scientific comments then we would also see the commentators talk about the bigger flaws in previous work.
Let me assure you that there are limitations to Regnerus's work. Here is the dirty little secret. There are limitations to all scientific work. He explains that much of these limitations are unavoidable. But the previously done work has even greater limitations and people were hailing that work as proof that sexual orientation does not matter. So I have to ask myself why these limitations matter now? Am I just being cynical in believing that those limitations matter now because Regnerus's study does not fit with the political theme many scholars want? Color me cynical.
I point this up not merely because of this particular question. Anytime scientists tackle a politically potent topic we are wise to ask about the biases of the work. It is unfortunate but the treatment of Regnerus work in comparison to the inferior previous work illustrates that bias. I have documented elements of this bias in my work as well. I want science to be a dispassionate search for truth. But I keep running into too much evidence that it is not.
Ultimately this is why we have global warming skeptics. This is why evolution is challenged. This is why a variety of scientific issues are just another battle in the culture war. And until we evaluate all research by identical criteria this is the fate of scientific efforts on controversial issues.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
I am a scientist. But this is why many people, myself included, are skeptical about science. For years we have been hearing that same-sex parents are no different than other parents. This has been the rallying cry for same-sex adoption. Yet as pointed out in this link it was very flawed research that generated such findings. No matter. It was the PC finding that was wanted and so forget the flaws.
Then Dr. Regnerus uses a superior sampling technique (I will save you from boredom from going into the details why this technique is superior to the nonprobability samples used before) and finds that may a difference. You would have thought the world was coming to an end. Check out the type of comments that are left for the article. These are not scientific comments. they are political comments masquerading as scientific comments. If they were truly scientific comments then we would also see the commentators talk about the bigger flaws in previous work.
Let me assure you that there are limitations to Regnerus's work. Here is the dirty little secret. There are limitations to all scientific work. He explains that much of these limitations are unavoidable. But the previously done work has even greater limitations and people were hailing that work as proof that sexual orientation does not matter. So I have to ask myself why these limitations matter now? Am I just being cynical in believing that those limitations matter now because Regnerus's study does not fit with the political theme many scholars want? Color me cynical.
I point this up not merely because of this particular question. Anytime scientists tackle a politically potent topic we are wise to ask about the biases of the work. It is unfortunate but the treatment of Regnerus work in comparison to the inferior previous work illustrates that bias. I have documented elements of this bias in my work as well. I want science to be a dispassionate search for truth. But I keep running into too much evidence that it is not.
Ultimately this is why we have global warming skeptics. This is why evolution is challenged. This is why a variety of scientific issues are just another battle in the culture war. And until we evaluate all research by identical criteria this is the fate of scientific efforts on controversial issues.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)