nancylebov: (green leaves)
[personal profile] nancylebov
David Frum concludes that same sex marriage doesn't damage heterosexual marriage.

Is there anything else in American politics which is dependent on as weak an argument as opposition to same sex marriage? The war on drugs is based on a wild over-estimation of government power, but it doesn't quite have that weird "I'll make up a definition and insist that it's realer than what can be observed" quality.

Link thanks to [livejournal.com profile] nwhyte.

Date: 2011-07-01 04:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] whswhs.livejournal.com
Can you point to a document that sets out the scientific evidence for global warming, fair and square with no contradictions, in a rigorous manner? I haven't been convinced by it, but what I've seen is popularizations and appeals to the Authority of Science; that's not a proper basis for judging whether the science makes sense.

Date: 2011-07-01 07:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] heron61.livejournal.com
I'm surprised and puzzled, there's a rather impressive wealth of evidence out there.

Hmm, as for solid data, have you looked at the information about worldwide losses to glaciers? Here's one useful site (of many) for this info. If the fact that glaciers have been retreating worldwide since around 1980s and this retreat is increasing doesn't seem reasonable to you, then we're operating from sufficiently different perspectives that I'm not at all certain that we have any basis for useful communication.

However, if this seems reasonable (not the cause, merely the fact that glaciers are retreating and that this is increasing), then I recommend the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. I have only read excerpts (both directly from the report and in various articles), but everything I've seen looks rigorous and solid and is the most comprehensive survey of the data and analysis of the data that I've seen.

Date: 2011-07-01 03:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] whswhs.livejournal.com
Well, a big part of it is that I'm not looking to read a lot of empirical data in a mass of scattered reports. I'm not a skilled enough statistician to do a meaningful analysis. And I don't know that literature enough to pick a good comprehensive study, especially one that actually discusses the theoretical and methodological questions. I had a book on the subject assigned to me for editing not long ago, but it was all just "scientists have found X," and I'm not prepared to accept that as conclusive; there are too many cases of scientists supporting politically motivated ideas that turned out to be false, from the necessity of legally compulsory eugenics to the denial of hereditary factors in personality. So I'd like to see at least a serious textbook treatment.

Date: 2011-07-01 08:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ashnistrike.livejournal.com
If you find the IPCC report intimidating--I do, and I've been doing intensive reading in this area--you might prefer Climate Change: Science and Policy. The first section brings together the many converging lines of evidence on anthropogenic climate change, in a way I found fairly straightforward. (I'm an experimental psychologist interested in how public opinion develops around major policy issues, so I'm familiar with the area but not a trained climate scientist.)

I also found this summary of the history of climate change science to be helpful for context.

There are many cases of scientists supporting politically motivated ideas, but few with the level of agreement among in-area researchers, or the diversity of evidence, that attend climate change. Eugenic claims, for example, were opposed by a large number of credible researchers--notably behavioral psychologists, who were well aware of the degree to which environment shapes capability.

Date: 2011-07-01 09:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nancylebov.livejournal.com
Any recommendations for information about opposition to eugenics when it was popular? The only thing I've read is GK Chesterton's Eugenics and Other Evils, he was a journalist rather than a scientist, and I don't remember his arguments.

Date: 2011-07-02 04:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ashnistrike.livejournal.com
Steven J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man includes excellent coverage of the intelligence-related research around eugenics. Fact from this book that has stuck in my head for years: back when skull volume was assumed to be related to intelligence, "researchers" measured it by filling skulls from different races with grain. They stuffed the Caucasian skulls to the bursting point, but the African-American skulls very loosely... Good scientists questioned these methods even at the time, although much of the general populace was very willing to go along with the "findings" that supported their assumptions.

Watson (of the infamous Little Albert experiment) spent a lot of time arguing with eugenicists as well--some of his writings may relate to that. They may also demonstrate the degree to which he was a complete asshole, but support for eugenics was not one of his flaws. His quote about "Give me a dozen well-formed infants..." is from a debate on the topic.

That's what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm afraid all my literature on the topic is currently packed and in another state, and will be till August.

Date: 2011-07-03 04:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] whswhs.livejournal.com
There is a recent study that reports that Gould's evidence is historically unsound; a new investigation actually got out all of those skulls, remeasured their volumes, and found that the error was minimal, and that to the extent that there was bias, it was toward reporting slightly higher volumes for African-American skull than the new measurements indicated. The Wikipedia article on Gould's book sums it up as "In another study, published in 2011, Jason E. Lewis and colleagues remeasured Morton's skulls and reexamined both Morton's and Gould's analyses, concluding that, contrary to Gould's claims, Morton did not manipulate his results to support his preconceptions. To the extent that Morton's measurements were erroneous, they were in the direction opposite of his supposed bias."

The actual paper, if you want to read it (it has open access), concludes that Morton did have racist biases, but that his published data were not affected by them: "Science does not rely on investigators being unbiased “automatons.” Instead, it relies on methods that limit the ability of the investigator's admittedly inevitable biases to skew the results. Morton's methods were sound, and our analysis shows that they prevented Morton's biases from significantly impacting his results. The Morton case, rather than illustrating the ubiquity of bias, instead shows the ability of science to escape the bounds and blinders of cultural contexts."

Date: 2011-07-03 04:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] whswhs.livejournal.com
Footnote: It was actually 308 skulls out of a sample of over 600; so not "all of those skulls."

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11 121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 5th, 2025 10:28 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios