Recently, several posters have been posting "facts" from people like Paul Cameron:
In 1986 the American Sociological Association, following a report from its Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology,[19] passed a resolution condemning Dr. Cameron for "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research".[20] In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".[21]
When one posts one of his studies, and is shown that it has been disproven by his peers, is the person lying when they claim it to be truth later? Are organizations, such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Institute, who continue to use these studies, continue to claim their validity, committing a grievious sin of deception?
If they are committing this sin, why do they need to lie if the truth is evident as they claim? Just as one can pour vinegar into a glass of baking soda and see the chemical reaction for themselves, peers should be able to do the exact same study and get the same results, but they don't. They criticise NOT the findings, but the PROCEDURE, which is faulty.
Someone recently posted a "study" if you can call it that that the average age for gay men is 43. The way that this was done was that the researcher chose to go through a gay newspaper and look at the obituaries when people were dying of AIDS, add the numbers and divide. That leaves a lot of holes, like factoring in the age of people who were negative, and still living.
Correlation is also a tricky thing.
For example: a prof once told the class: It is proven that there is a direct coorelation between the number of churches in a city, and the number of bars. Does that mean that churches create more bars?
There is a third, overlooked element: The more population you have, the more churches, and so of course, the more bars.
It is human to have a faulty study, or flawed findings.
However, it is subhuman to then take those flawed findings, and STILL report them as truth.
So, if you know better, but still use disproven data, are you lying?
Are the organizations that use this faulty data also lying?
And more importantly: Why do they choose to blantantly lie?
Is it in any way serving God? Is it serving Man? Who is serving?
If Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, is this Jesus' Way? His Truth? This Light?
In 1986 the American Sociological Association, following a report from its Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology,[19] passed a resolution condemning Dr. Cameron for "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research".[20] In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".[21]
When one posts one of his studies, and is shown that it has been disproven by his peers, is the person lying when they claim it to be truth later? Are organizations, such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Institute, who continue to use these studies, continue to claim their validity, committing a grievious sin of deception?
If they are committing this sin, why do they need to lie if the truth is evident as they claim? Just as one can pour vinegar into a glass of baking soda and see the chemical reaction for themselves, peers should be able to do the exact same study and get the same results, but they don't. They criticise NOT the findings, but the PROCEDURE, which is faulty.
Someone recently posted a "study" if you can call it that that the average age for gay men is 43. The way that this was done was that the researcher chose to go through a gay newspaper and look at the obituaries when people were dying of AIDS, add the numbers and divide. That leaves a lot of holes, like factoring in the age of people who were negative, and still living.
Correlation is also a tricky thing.
For example: a prof once told the class: It is proven that there is a direct coorelation between the number of churches in a city, and the number of bars. Does that mean that churches create more bars?
There is a third, overlooked element: The more population you have, the more churches, and so of course, the more bars.
It is human to have a faulty study, or flawed findings.
However, it is subhuman to then take those flawed findings, and STILL report them as truth.
So, if you know better, but still use disproven data, are you lying?
Are the organizations that use this faulty data also lying?
And more importantly: Why do they choose to blantantly lie?
Is it in any way serving God? Is it serving Man? Who is serving?
If Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, is this Jesus' Way? His Truth? This Light?
