[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Paul B. at 27 Apr 2002 15:45:55: Shockingly Confused!
As an answer to: Re: Confused? written by rjk at 25 Apr 2002 22:56:29:
> My goal is to synthesize no justification in any direction,
Actually, when I said "your goal", I was referring to Lauman et. al.'s apparent goals, not yourself! Their goals are fairly clear to the cautious observer, from the manner in which they sum up their report.
> but to point out facts
The correct term is to present evidence or proposals. Not all evidence is factual, and the process of making conclusions from it requires that each piece be weighed and both its veracity and significance determined.
> which, as it happens, are substantiated by statistics,
Which as I was pointing out, indicates the substantial limitation of statistics, that they only reflect the responses to the questions asked - ask the wrong questions, and your statistics mean the wrong thing.
> Science has no room for anti-Semitism.
So why do you follow this line of argument? I mention that one author was Jewish, reflecting the quite disproportionate representation of Jews in American medicine, and the plausibility that Jews may have an "investment" in rationalisation of their customs.
It is fascinating how you for one, immediately translate this into anti-Semitism. This suggests that you, not myself, have a very political approach to discussion, trotting out deliberately emotive and entirely irrelevant "arguments" in the expectation that your audience is so stupid that they will accept these in lieu of logical discourse.
"Straw man" and emotive argument, if I pick it correctly.
Or else you simply have no capacity for English comprehension and could only discern the word "Jewish", thus read into my statement what you fantasise it to mean.
> All studies have limitations.
This one had a quite crucial limitation. Either poor design, or deliberate design to hide something.
> you ignore Shere Hite,
Your point is?
> why they often masturbate even with a regular sex life
Is this your point? "even" with a regular sex life? Is that not begging the question? Are you suggesting here that Hite claims that they do not resort to masturbation more, the less satisfactory their relationship is?
> we can find that 90% of the respondents to one questionnaire were satisfied with their circumcised condition.
Ninety percent satisfaction you say? Ninety percent satisfaction with an unnecessary interference, granted that most respondents were entirely ignorant of the nature of it? You must be a politician to consider that an acceptable situation. Tell me, in which country did she research this?
> that Laumann et al. report a SLIGHT (my caps) benefit from circumcision.
You really don't "get it", do you? The emphasis should be on the word "benefit". The problem is that they called what they observed a "benefit". That is where the claim to scientific method falls short. They asked some carefully selected questions, they obtained some numbers, and they interpreted the results as showing a (slight or otherwise) "benefit" from circumcision. That is what "blows their cover".
Byee!