Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, according to you men are biologically hardwired to detest other men's offspring, a claim that I'd love to see you actually find support for. But if we follow that claim, then that would mean I should hate my nephews and nieces since they're the offspring of another man.
Solytaire complied. After, he was accused of justifying his own beliefs. Instead of getting a thank you and agreeing to disagree, it was just another back handed insult on a "deficient" personality.
You didn't bother actually looking into what happened and just decided to start mocking the political opposition.
What is indeed quite odd is that this is regarded as an obscure opinion. The vast majority of men looking to date in the 20 something dating pool is not going to consider a single mom a plus. Its obvious.
No the problem gwynedd is that solytaire didn't actually back up his claims. He simply repeated someone else's hypothesis and tried to pass it off as fact. No one is disputing that most men would prefer not to date a single mom. But the claim that men detest other men's children has not been sufficiently proven.
False. The report merely presents a hypothesis to explain the results. That's the problem with your whole argument. You're passing off someone else's hypothesis as if it's fact.
A "hypothesis"?!...lol..are you serious?..surely you arent serious?.. come on dude...lol, the reference I was talking about (the first article that I linked you to) was an abstract supporting (or maybe even, NOT supporting a hypothesis)...meaning that it was a synopsis of the conclusion of their study. A hypothesis was never even mentioned. What you seem to be mistaking or casting as a "hypothesis" was nothing more than their logical and professional conclusion. You're acting as though the fact that these researchers actually had objectives to their studies means that the studies are ineffective...Ive never heard anyone attempt to use that logic.
Quote:
The problem is you haven't proven your point at all. All you've done is recycle someone else's hypothesis and tried to pass it off as scientific fact.
You asked for evidence that supported my statement and thats what supporting empirical evidence is for. What? Do you think Im going to go conduct a study, and bring you back some anecdotal finding (which is what it would be) that you're supposed to accept as unbiased evidence? I understand that this would be your method of supporting your argument, but sociologists or people who seek to add true weight their arguments wouldnt find that method acceptable
Quote:
Wrong. All they have to do is show that your evidence or the assumptions of your study are flawed. I've already done that.
Not with anything factual...you simply keep reiterating the same mumbo jumbo about 'flawed this and flawed that', with absolutely no empirical support for it..not surprising and not valid.
Quote:
You're still just repeating a hypothesis. Do the authors of that study conclusively show the connection? No. They simply put forth a hypothesis to explain their findings.
Like you said, it's a correlation. Where's the evidence of this biological wiring?
No, the problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that all you're doing is passing off someone else's hypothesis and claiming it as conclusive proof. What's also true is that the observations made in this study show correlation, nothing more.
What?!...I never said anything in those reports was conclusive. I simply said that it supports and correlates with what I stated. Thats what social sciences do: They show correlations. social sciences cant and dont attempt to be conclusive. They show correlations not certitudes. Thats all they can do, and they are used for all manner of logical support in academia and in the sociological science community.
Quote:
This is why I think you and gwynedd are the same person. You both use the same phrasing, sentence structure, and insults.
Oh did he already discover that you were Big Bird's alter ego? Ooops, I sure wish he had told me before we struck up this dialogue. Apparently Big Bird thrusts passive aggressive insults at people now.
Gwynned and I dont even use the same sentence/writing structure if you really employ your observation skills....I use ellipses much more than him. He opens with a salutation and he writes far more concisely than me. I tend to be wordy and rambling whereas he has much more compact and complex writings. Im sure it all looks the same to you.
Coincidentally we do tend to have similar ideas about the topics we discuss. But I dont see how two people who agree on an issue translates to them being the same person...
Last edited by solytaire; 04-14-2010 at 04:10 PM..
No the problem gwynedd is that solytaire didn't actually back up his claims. He simply repeated someone else's hypothesis and tried to pass it off as fact. No one is disputing that most men would prefer not to date a single mom. But the claim that men detest other men's children has not been sufficiently proven.
No the problem is that Denny cant prove that solytaire didnt back up his claim with anything other than arbitrary proclamations of insufficient evidence and anecdotes.. He hasnt, and he wont be able to.
No the problem gwynedd is that solytaire didn't actually back up his claims. He simply repeated someone else's hypothesis and tried to pass it off as fact. No one is disputing that most men would prefer not to date a single mom. But the claim that men detest other men's children has not been sufficiently proven.
Denny,
What progressed from your request is not relevant. This poster was mocking the concept of hard evidence which was what you requested. The debate over the hard evidence is not relevant. Your reply is a non sequitur regarding this point. This is again why I have little interest in having a debate. I am not interested wading through the rhetorical flaws.
Take up issues you have with the other posters. If you would like to argue over semantics with someone else, please do.
What?!...I never said anything in those reports was conclusive. I simply said that it supports and correlates with what I stated. Thats what social sciences do: They show correlations. social sciences cant and dont attempt to be conclusive. They show correlations not certitudes. Thats all they can do, and they are used for all manner of logical support in academia and in the sociological science community.
Greetings solytaire,
Since being a social scientist was part of my educational background, allow me to clarify. They often do look for correlations which are calculated as Pearson R correlation coefficients. More or less if plot X moves, it is calculated how much, and in which direction, does that move plot Y. This is often done with data analysis. However studies may be conducted with controlled inputs in which case inferential statistics are used to determine main effects. For example, if turned up the temperature 10 degrees when taking a test, I am manipulating an input.
The only difference between soft sciences and say the pharmaceutical industry is in the confidence levels. A 5% chance of a type 1 error, aka false positive, is the standard in soft sciences where it is not considered acceptable for a drug. Of course the reason I know this is because in engineering was exposed to quality control management which did the same thing. One tests samples and looks for out of bounds statistical samples with the given confidence interval. It was pioneered by a statistician by the name of W Edwards Deming. The US industrial base was not interested so he went to Japan.
Dr. W. Edwards Deming (http://www.lii.net/deming.html - broken link)
Someone suggested I was an arm chair theorist when in fact I conducted the same methodologies and testing in a psychology and in an engineering context.
What you seem to be mistaking or casting as a "hypothesis" was nothing more than their logical and professional conclusion. You're acting as though the fact that these researchers actually had objectives to their studies means that the studies are ineffective...Ive never heard anyone attempt to use that logic.
No, what it sounds like they, and you, are doing is trying to explain the pattern they observed. And BTW, this still doesn't support your original argument. The researchers simply concluded that men are more likely to want to invest in their children and less likely to want to invest in other men's children. How does this equate to actually detesting them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
You asked for evidence that supported my statement and thats what supporting empirical evidence is for. What? Do you think Im going to go conduct a study, and bring you back some anecdotal finding (which is what it would be) that you're supposed to accept as unbiased evidence? I understand that this would be your method of supporting your argument, but sociologists or people who seek to add true weight their arguments wouldnt find that method acceptable
Problem is that it doesn't support your statement no matter how much you try to stretch the meaning of the scientists' conclusion. I ask you again how does showing a preference for one's own children equate to detesting other men's children? All you've done here is show that men have a preference for theirs and scientists' explanation for why that preference exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
Not with anything factual...you simply keep reiterating the same mumbo jumbo about 'flawed this and flawed that', with absolutely no empirical support for it..not surprising and not valid.
The problem is simple. You can't support your claim and now you're just deflecting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
Thats what social sciences do: They show correlations. social sciences cant and dont attempt to be conclusive. They show correlations not certitudes. Thats all they can do, and they are used for all manner of logical support in academia and in the sociological science community.
This is precisely the point I've been trying to make. That study simple shows a correlation. But you started this whole thing by saying men detest other men's children as if that was accepted fact when all you've really done is present correlation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
Oh did he already discover that you were Big Bird's alter ego? Ooops, I sure wish he had told me before we struck up this dialogue. Apparently Big Bird thrusts passive aggressive insults at people now.
Gwynned and I dont even use the same sentence/writing structure if you really employ your observation skills....I use ellipses much more than him. He opens with a salutation and he writes far more concisely than me. I tend to be wordy and rambling whereas he has much more compact and complex writings. Im sure it all looks the same to you.
Coincidentally we do tend to have similar ideas about the topics we discuss. But I dont see how two people who agree on an issue translates to them being the same person...
It's an amazing coincidence, one that quite a number of us have picked up on. I have no conclusive proof that you're the same person. But if we follow your logic, the burden is now on you to prove that you're not.
No the problem is that Denny cant prove that solytaire didnt back up his claim with anything other than arbitrary proclamations of insufficient evidence and anecdotes.. He hasnt, and he wont be able to.
No, the problem is that solytaire, who still refers to himself in the third person as if someone else were posting his response, can't back up his claim. All he's presented is correlation and then drawn a conclusion that even the researchers themselves didn't draw. Now, when his proof fails to convince, he deflects by asking his critics to disprove his claim.
What progressed from your request is not relevant. This poster was mocking the concept of hard evidence which was what you requested. The debate over the hard evidence is not relevant. Your reply is a non sequitur regarding this point. This is again why I have little interest in having a debate. I am not interested wading through the rhetorical flaws.
Take up issues you have with the other posters. If you would like to argue over semantics with someone else, please do.
No, the real reason you have little interest in having a debate is because like most of your other debates, your arguments fall apart pretty quickly and rather than defend them, you instead attack your critics and accuse them of not knowing how to properly debate.
No, what it sounds like they, and you, are doing is trying to explain the pattern they observed. And BTW, this still doesn't support your original argument. The researchers simply concluded that men are more likely to want to invest in their children and less likely to want to invest in other men's children. How does this equate to actually detesting them?
Nothing you've presented here supports your claim that my supporting evidence is invalid. Just general run of the mill, if predictable, skepticism of science.
Quote:
Problem is that it doesn't support your statement no matter how much you try to stretch the meaning of the scientists' conclusion. I ask you again how does showing a preference for one's own children equate to detesting other men's children? All you've done here is show that men have a preference for theirs and scientists' explanation for why that preference exists.
Thats all I had to do. Thats all that my statement ever put forth. As you stated, researchers concluded that men favored children which appeared to share their genes because they are: *surprise* men. Whereas women didnt do so, because they are:.......... *wait for it* -- women.
You're not going to grasp it no matter how many times I state it so there is no need in opening that box again. Ive explained them multiple times and not only have you not grasped the evidence, you cant even really supply anything empirical which states the contrary. No matter how much you oversimplify the findings, your opposition now is nothing more than willfully ignorant skepticism, at best.
Quote:
The problem is simple. You can't support your claim and now you're just deflecting.
Indeed the problem is very simple...you cant provide contradictory evidence to anything that have provided, and at this point you have been reduced to nothing more than a run of the mill skeptic of science...nothing new there. People have always doubted science.
Quote:
This is precisely the point I've been trying to make. That study simple shows a correlation. But you started this whole thing by saying men detest other men's children as if that was accepted fact when all you've really done is present correlation.
That is what "support" (as you requested) is. I stated that men are biologically wired to detest other men's offspring. The evidence/studies I presented were based in social science which is often used to explain the ways in which men and women are biologically different. There is nothing more that "support" (as you requested) can do. Its ignorant to expect studies to aim for 100% certainty in their outcomes.
Quote:
It's an amazing coincidence, one that quite a number of us have picked up on. I have no conclusive proof that you're the same person. But if we follow your logic, the burden is now on you to prove that you're not.
Well, you can assume whatever you want...you do it anyway..its not like you can refute or accept science either way so it really doesnt matter. You couldnt comprehend the results of a DNA test that clearly stated that we are two different people so believe what you want to believe.
Last edited by solytaire; 04-15-2010 at 02:26 PM..
No, the problem is that solytaire, who still refers to himself in the third person as if someone else were posting his response, can't back up his claim. All he's presented is correlation and then drawn a conclusion that even the researchers themselves didn't draw. Now, when his proof fails to convince, he deflects by asking his critics to disprove his claim.
No, the problem is that Dennis cant comprehend anything that solytaire does not spoonfeed to him. And since he cant comprehend it and because he is incapable of presenting any supporting evidence of his own, he simply relies on his base skepticism as a shield for his ineffective argument. Now that his elementary skepticism is being exposed for what it is, he attempts to prolong his veto-power logic hoping that it will suffice as support for his own vapid shell of an argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
