Second researcher says Dobson misrepresented his work

[TracerBullet]

Earlier Dr. Carol Gilligan wrote Dr. James Dobson upset by Dobson’s misrepresentation of her research in a recent Time magazine essay and asked him
to stop using her work in the future.


“I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission.
You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you site in your piece, I wrote, "What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex."



http://mediamatters.org/items/200612140004

 

[Voegelin]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612140004


Funding for which is provided by these individuals and foundations.

 

[CFISNOWHERESYFORUMS]

Sorry but this has already been addressed on the other thread that is already open on this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t4397621-james-dobson-being-christ-like.html&page=3

It's the same story as with Gilligan. While I am not as familar with Pruett's work as I am with Gilligan's, Dobson does not misrepresent Pruett either.

He made a very short reference to Pruett's work:

The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother."

Pruett confirms that he wrote "Fathers do not mother", In the letter that you are referencing.

Again, his beef is not that Dobson attributed to him something he did not say, but that Dobson drew conclusions that he didn't like from his work.

Take a break from drinking the hateorade a second and follow me.

If "Fathers do not mother" as Pruett stated, then it is legitimate for someone to conclude that Kids need BOTH a mother and a Father.

The same goes for Gilligan's work.

The Tantrum that these people are throwing, is because of their desire to have a monopoly on ideas, something that can never be allowed.

It doesn't matter that Pruett doesn't share Dobson's conclusions, if the underlying fact is that "fathers don't mother", then a same-sex household lacks a component, either motherhood or fatherhood.

Someone can legitimately conclude, even if the original researcher does not, that kids need both a mom and dad.

Your crusade against Dobson doesn't change that fact.

 

[SallyNow]

Me: ... so in conlusion, you can see that many cats get whiny with age. However, most cats do not get whiny with age, and some cats are whiny their entire life.

Person who draws conclusion in magazine article: SallyNow clearly states that "...cats get whiny with age" in her book titled "Cats Are Cute". This assertive comment asserts my point that old cats should be put in special oldcat kennels where their owners can see them once a month...

Me: No, my conclusion does not at all support the idea that old cats should be put in kennels. It simply states that cats can get whiny with age, and that all cats should be given special care and attention as they get older.

Person who draws conclusions in magazine article: I'm interpreting and using your data in a way you don't like, and now you are disagreeing with your own data.

Me: No, you are misinterpeting my data. This is annoying. I have a strange craving for an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation...

As you can see from above, sometimes "interpetations of data" are clearly misrepresentations of data. I don't know if that is the case here, but I'm just putting that out there.

Also, as for the care of "fathers do not mother", is the conclusion drawn that children need both a mother and a father in every case? Or not? For instance, a person does not need a cat and a dog, although it is nice to have both.

Again, I'm just putting it out there. I'm not saying a child does not need a mother and a father, or not... I'm just asking what the original conclusions were.

 

[ElvisFan42]

Dobson misrepresents all the time, it's like reporting Jay Leno made a joke out of someone's work,

 

[burrow_owl]

Also, as for the care of "fathers do not mother", is the conclusion drawn that children need both a mother and a father in every case?

The important part is that Dobson didn't say that the researchers support the proposition that a father and a mother are necessary. He correctly summarized their research, and then said that that research supports his position. That is absolutely within the realm of the acceptable.

 

[TracerBullet]

The important part is that Dobson didn't say that the researchers support the proposition that a father and a mother are necessary. He correctly summarized their research, and then said that that research supports his position. That is absolutely within the realm of the acceptable.

If Dobson’s work is so good…why does he have to misrepresent legitimate researchers to make his claims?

 

[TracerBullet]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612140004


Funding for which is provided by these individuals and foundations.

So what … that doesn’t change the fact that Dobson managed to misrepresent the research of two separate scientists in one essay (yes we all know Dobson routinely misrepresents facts and blatantly lies about homosexuals all the time)

Are you suggesting that it misrepresenting the legitimate research of others morally acceptable?

 

[CCGirl]

Why anyone would give this lunatic the time of day is beyond me!

 

[TracerBullet]

Why anyone would give this lunatic the time of day is beyond me!

Because he tells the lies people want to hear

 

[TracerBullet]

A larger question looms as to why Dobson is ignoring the rather significant amount of research showing that the children of same sex couples are healthy, happy and well adjusted?

Dobson claims that the resulting data shows that "children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father." Yet this is patently false…why is he lying about this?

 

[burrow_owl]

If Dobson’s work is so good…why does he have to misrepresent legitimate researchers to make his claims?

You got that exactly backwards: Dobson's work isn't good, and he didn't misrepresent research.