(February 19, 2013 at 1:49 pm)Question Mark Wrote: He just pointed out that the book you cited had been discredited by other sources, and most significantly in my opinion, that the research was likely very biased because it was sponsored by an organisation that wishes to see intrinsic homosexuality proven false. You can't take something on face value when it obviously has an agenda.
If you could cite any book or any research, or anything else as evidence simply because it exists, then we'd believe the bible.

1. Are you claiming that peer review can't weed out biased studies?

2. The first study I gave hasn't been attacked.

I'm claiming that if something has a powerful Exodus International behind it, can be put out in the public. I'm also saying that the American Psychological Association finding the study unreliable is a pretty decent attack.

(February 19, 2013 at 1:57 pm)Question Mark Wrote: I'm claiming that if something has a powerful Exodus International behind it, can be put out in the public. I'm also saying that the American Psychological Association finding the study unreliable is a pretty decent attack.

Ah, so peer reviewed journals can be bought off.

(February 19, 2013 at 2:26 pm)John V Wrote:

(February 19, 2013 at 1:57 pm)Question Mark Wrote: I'm claiming that if something has a powerful Exodus International behind it, can be put out in the public. I'm also saying that the American Psychological Association finding the study unreliable is a pretty decent attack.

Ah, so peer reviewed journals can be bought off.

Don't you be strawmanning me now. Peer review denounced that book you cited, and Exodus International backed it. Who do you suppose common people listen to? The actual reviews of researchers and respectable organisations, or the divine power of Exodus International?
I didn't say anything about money, I said that book is backed by a powerful christian group with an agenda.

(February 19, 2013 at 2:26 pm)John V Wrote: Ah, so peer reviewed journals can be bought off.

Not bought off, but they can be wrong, something you've clearly never even considered. The term you're looking for is called peer-review failure; since the reviewers of these studies generally don't have the raw data involved, certain things have to be taken on trust, and even if we remove the very clear bias in this study, there are numerous methodological problems in the execution of collecting this data, and also numerous issues that only came to light once the study had been concluded, as is the nature of self reporting, that call the conclusions therein into question.

That's the great thing about peer review, though; it generally doesn't just end at publication. You can bet your bottom dollar that if anything goes wrong in the guts of a study or report, the rest of the field will point it out. As is what happened here; the American Psychological Association isn't something piffling, John. One should pay attention when they shake their head at your citation.

(February 19, 2013 at 1:57 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You're missing the crucial fact that peer review- which is an ongoing process of self correction, by the way- continued to dissect your study, and found it wanting. From top to bottom, that last link you cited has been found to be trash; that's how peer review works.

No, peer review found it acceptable for publication. It was then shouted down in blogs and such.

Quote:As for your other study, I've already gone into that in detail: it doesn't show what you think it shows, for one. Secondly, wonderfully, if you'd actually bothered to look at that link at all, you'd see that it deals in the discrimination that bisexuals suffer, and is actually quite sympathetic to our cause. It literally presents exactly the case that I have been, that there are other sociological factors like bigotry that have an effect on the data. And that's just by its tone.

Not that one, the other logitudinal one on women.

Quote:You don't have a leg to stand on, dude. And I notice you've got nothing to say about the head of the ministry that funded your latest citation coming out and saying the whole set up is a crock of shit, too. I wonder why that could be?

Because it's weak compared to a study in a peer-reviewed journal.