GameBanshee Forums

@Littiz: Excellent points. The truth is, science has not proven that homosexuality is conclusively caused by factors A or B. Studies suggest correlations here and there, and it is up to the observer to interpret these findings and results as they will, as people invariably do. I heartily disagree with anyone who asserts that homosexuality is caused by concrete factors. It is not. A human being is not a simple study, as some seem to believe. Human behavior is deeply complex, caused by a myriad of factors both internal and external so variable that science lacks the ability to assess them all...researchers can only propose theories, as it were, that some tout to be fact. I personally liked your example concerning scientific studies concerning tobacco, and that is not the only example. It is common amongst the scientific community to blast theories and studies that are opposed to your own, simply because scientists are as fallible as any other human being. To me, any scientist who claims to be totally objective proves that they are not, for no one really is.

Originally posted by Antimatter
@fable that's where democracy is supposed to take us, though. It seems that more people (or at least most of us here) would like to see same-sex marriages recongnized in our own areas. If this holds true throughout a given area then I think the government should comply to the public's wishes. After all, that is the idea of a democracy isn't it?

@Antimatter, I'm not sure that is democracy; if you mean, that the government is supposed to provide an instant shift in view to reflect the majority perspective of a voting population. I've been pretty outspoken in this forum about my preference for the Northern European parliamentary system of multiple parties and consensus building. To me, a democracy as practiced in modern times is about attempting to meet the needs and desires (two very separate things) of a host of smaller sub-cultural units that go to form any given society.

But I'm getting far afield. And not for the first time.

If this were the government of SYM, I strongly suspect legislation in favor of same-sex marriages would gain broad approval at once, and I'd be in the vanguard, both for rational (homophobia is an illogical prejudice) and religious (I'm Wiccan) reasons. But if, say, the governments of Spain, Italy, Mexico, Chile, or the US were to hold a binding referendum (which they never would) on this subject, do you really think the public would give its approbation? At worst, you could end up with a resounding "no" vote--what happens to the principle, then, of a government whose leaders actually try to lead? At best, you would probably have a split right down the middle; and in that case, would a political decision to either side of the issue actually resolve anything, or only churn up great anger and polarize views within the society?

IMO, Chretien was wise not to treat the matter of same-sex marriages democratically, and put it to a vote. There is a certain point before which a visionary politican can push unfavorable legislation down their public's throat, by virtue of popularity, and counting upon the abrasion of time and familiarity to wear away anger. But beyond that point--in places like Nigeria or Turkmenistan, and many others, as well--even personal popularity and the courts cannot force a culture to change its views. I'm inclined to think that in such instances, the best one can hope for is small steps towards a recognition of rights that should be guaranteed to all as a matter of course.

Originally posted by dragon wench
As Chretien says... times have changed... and the nature of marriage has changed as well. Marriage has slowly evolved from being a strategic political alliance to something based more on emotion. Yes, this is a generalisation, but I think it is fair to say that most people in the "Western" world now marry for love. Not that it always works out.. but that is another subject altogether..

Not quite, it's also a status symbol, if marriage was only about love then it wouldn't require three mortgages, two loans and a years worth of hard graft to be able to afford one

I can't see many reasons why not but I'm undecided on whether it is really worth it, marriages are usually conducted by the church which would require them to contradict their doctrines to properly instigate a marriage. It will undoubtedly make the church look even more hypocritical and conflicted than they already do. I do question what gain their is for homosexual couples except for being "the same" and maybe the odd tax break.

Why homosexuals feel they need marriage is confusing, it's a bit puritanical anyway, so you live together in a stable relationship, what difference is a bit of paper and a party going to make.

Originally posted by Chanak
@Littiz: Excellent points. The truth is, science has not proven that homosexuality is conclusively caused by factors A or B. Studies suggest correlations here and there, and it is up to the observer to interpret these findings and results as they will, as people invariably do.

Two important things here:
1. It is important that the semantics are clear here: what is "proven" and not "proven", what constitute a proof? In science we never speak about "proof", it's not a meaningful word (although popular media likes it), we test hypothesis and the results can be consistent or not. Do you consider it "proven" that schizophrenia is caused by genetic and biologica factors, not due to charcteristics in parenting or sociocultural variables, and not a choice? Do you consider it "proven" that black people do not have inferior cogntive functions in comparison to white people?

2. Please provide references for you statements. You state that "the truth is that science...etc" and you state that studies report correlation but that interpretation is "up to the observer". If you speak for science and as an interpreter of scientific results, I'd like to see the references. If you cannot provide references and speak with your own personal feelings or beliefs as a basis, then IMO you should not use expressions such as "the truth is that science this or that" and claim to be able to critically review scientific work by stating that interpretation is up to the observer. How do you know your opinions to be "true"?

I heartily disagree with anyone who asserts that homosexuality is caused by concrete factors. It is not.

What do you mean by concrete factor? Is a genetic haploid (a pattern of genes) a concrete factor? Is a chain consisting of a chain reaction between chemical and biological evens and genetic transcription responses a concrete factor? In upbringing a concrete factor? What causes human behaviour in general? Do you mean there is anything more than "nature", "nurture" and the interaction of the two? Studies demonstrate we must conclude that sociocultural factors such as upbringing, parental style and peer impact as causes of homosexuality. What is left then other than biological and genetic factor? Transcendental factors of course if you believe in a transcendental world (something like a god created homosexual people that way, or they are possessed by a mystical entity like a spirit). Environmental factors like exposal for certain particles or substances is another possibility, but it fits ill with the notion that prevalence of homosexulity is constant in different regions...So what, in you opinion, cause homosexuality and how do you know what causes it?

A human being is not a simple study, as some seem to believe. Human behavior is deeply complex, caused by a myriad of factors both internal and external so variable that science lacks the ability to assess them all...researchers can only propose theories, as it were, that some tout to be fact.

This reminds me of the old Creation v Evolution discussion, where the problem with fact and theory emerged. NAS (the US National Academy of Science) has written a leaflet for laymen explaning the concepts "hypothesis", "theory" and how this connects to when something is called a "fact". Please read it here:
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/1.html

I really, really recommend people who wish to critisise and review science, to learn something about it. Basic concepts, definitions and methods, as well as scientific theory. That somebody refuse to believe in the result of a study for persona reasons is one thing, and in that situation laymen often try to discredit the study with general expressions such as "scientists can be wrong" or "it's a matter of personal interpretion". However, these are very flat and unsubstansial arguments since everything could hypothetially always be wrong. Maybe science is wrong that the sun in shining due to nuclear fusion, after all, we haven't seen that with our own eyes, only the scientist say so but that might be a matter of personal interpretation. Yes it might - but how likely do you find this to be?

There is a lot of bad studies and bad science around, but how valid a study is, is not dependant of what an individual subjectively thinks about the result, instead, a study must be assessed on the basis of method, error sources, measurement reliability and validity etc.

Again, if you personal opinion based of personal belief and subjective feelings is that homosexual people should not adopt and that their sexual orientation is a choice, fine - it's not my business how you choose to form your opinions as long as you don't hurt others, with you obviously wouldn't dream of doing. But - you cannot claim that your opinions are based on facts. It is a difference between ignoring scientific data because of your religion, political stance or personal feelings, and claiming scientific data is wrong. If you wish to claim it is wrong and that conclusions are wrong, you should be able to provide references of data supporting your opinion.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Love is never wrong, with the caveat that it must be between people of reasonably maturity and mutual consent.

This is my personal belief system to a "T"....In fact....it is something I have said so many times you could have quoted me on it


@CE: I do not think that rather or not homosexuality is a natural..ie: biological phenomenon, or a learned, condition bears any weight in the matter of a domestic partnership being afforded the same rights, protections, and safeguards of a 'Traditional' marriage. You however have mentioned a couple of things which for personal reasons have piqued my interest.
In particular...

1.Is a genetic haploid (a pattern of genes) a concrete factor?
2.Is a chain consisting of a chain reaction between chemical and biological evens and genetic transcription responses a concrete factor?

Has there been a direct cause and effect, beyond a proponderance of evidence, and from several un-related comparative studies, established showing much more than corrolations but irrefutable evidence that these factors are in fact present in all homosexuals?

I am no scientist, so please in your answer, break it down for me if this is the case. Nor am I arguing with you, this is after all your field of expertise, not mine. As I said, I have a personal interest in this, and someone very dear to me would benifit from this knowledge. It would have to be more however than a widely accepted theory, as in the past these have not been enough to give them peace of mind.



As far as Chan's statements about 'Truths'. I think there is a cultural/language thing going on here. Let me explain as far as I can.

Example:...

In the School systems here in Texas...the 'Big Bang' Theory is taught as "Truth" with the footnote disclamer that is so widely accepted that it is a fore-gone conclusion. Now, while I mayself do see credance in the theory, in my mind, a Theory...no matter how widely accepted by the scientific comunity is still just that, a theory. It has not been established as a law of nature.

A=A

To people like Chan and myself, when children are taught in this manner, it closes the doors to their minds to further question, ponder, and perhaps someday explore. There are many theories as I am sure you are well aware of that are hotly debated on both sides of an issue. Untill a theory is resolved beyond dispute, there will always be room for qualified interpretation of the data. One does not have to be a scientist himself to realise this. But if to make my point, if I need to site a clinical example, I will choose taxonomy and philology. Life forms are moved in and out of certain classifications rather often based on new information, and when this happens, some of the community applauds, while some dissent. In the meantime, our children are taught these things as if they were carved in stone.
the very beauty of science, and that beauty is something that I love perhaps as much as you do, is that in its purest form, it has to remain plastic and receptive of new facts as they emerge. Unlike say, religion, which can afford to hold on to doggma in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Nothing that I have said, or (and I believe I can speak for him here) Chan has said, was meant to cast a disrespectful light on a field that we both admire. However, the American school system is notorious for picking a pet theory and teaching it as though no other plausable alternative exists.

Anyway, I hope this helps you understand he was not speaking as a scientist, but as someone who like me saw through the short commings of the presentation of science as it is so often taught today.

Originally posted by Chanak
@Littiz: Excellent points. The truth is, science has not proven that homosexuality is conclusively caused by factors A or B. Studies suggest correlations here and there, and it is up to the observer to interpret these findings and results as they will, as people invariably do.

Did you read what CE said? No one has claimed to know the absolute causes of homosexuality, but it has effectively been proven that cultural factors are not the cause.
Considering that instinces of homosexuality are essentially uniform across all cultures, either
a) Cultural factors are the cause, in which case the factor(s) are identical both in quantity and quality in all cultures, sice they produce essentially identical effects,
or
b) Cultural factors are not the cause.

Considering that you're claiming cultural factors as the cause (or so it seems, you said earlier it was a choice ), would you care to suggest which factor(s) are involved?

To me, any scientist who claims to be totally objective proves that they are not, for no one really is.

Do you accept the objectivity of the scientific method, or do you feel that it too is subject to the bias of individual scientists? In other words, do you disagree with the interpretation and the results of the studies CE linked to, or just the interpretation?

I heartily disagree with anyone who asserts that homosexuality is caused by concrete factors. It is not. A human being is not a simple study, as some seem to believe. Human behavior is deeply complex, caused by a myriad of factors both internal and external so variable that science lacks the ability to assess them all...researchers can only propose theories, as it were, that some tout to be fact. I personally liked your example concerning scientific studies concerning tobacco, and that is not the only example. It is common amongst the scientific community to blast theories and studies that are opposed to your own, simply because scientists are as fallible as any other human being.

You've already stated what you consider the causes to be - either a person is biologically prone to homosexuality (whether by genetic propensity or by in utero hormone exposure) or else is influenced by environmental factors such as being raised by homosexual parents.
Since you don't consider science competent to state the causes of homosexuality, on what grounds do you do so?

The tobacco example has already been dealt with - those studies showing tobacco to be harmless or even beneficial were not peer reviewed, and thus not respectable science.

In relation to your last point, can you provide any other examples? Please only refer to peer reviewed studies, since those conducted on the behalf of, and funded by, vested interests such as the tobacco lobby are not good science.

Personally, I wish to form my opinions based on facts, and I will change my opinions if facts change.

The very core of the issue, is that facts shouldn't change.
You admit this "oxymoron-like" concept 'cause you know that this happens often in science: something is held as a fact by the entire community, until new evidence shows it wasn't.
It wasn't a "fact" even before.

Don't take me bad, I'm more science-oriented than you'd think!
When I was 11 and 12 I used to read science divulgative books about the origin of the universe, the nature of the matter and so on. I've kept the position you're holding now for years in my life, but I also did it too early and too arrogantly.
I used to consider people who followed a religion ignorant of the "facts", and considered myself on a higher level.
Then, with time, I realized that I still lacked a lot of answers, and I decided that pretending to know, even basing on science, is wrong other than arrogant.

I'm now involved in studies about hardware and software. Well, software mostly.
A traditional issue is the problem of computability. Practically speaking, the only fully computable problems are the didactic ones.
This means some problems can't be solved, some others can, but you *can't* ever FULLY test the algorithms that solve them or know all possible outcomes.
You can realize a short, TWO-PAGES program, and then to be sure it's bugfree... you'd have to test some many inputs' combinations, so many decision branches, so many possible program paths that not even a huge network of computers could test them in millions of years.
This gives a perception of the problem of scalability. When a program is tested, you can use methods of simulation for example, which actually equals to test a infinitesimal fraction of the states' space. There are other methods but you see the point.

So, research, demonstrations, proofs... what does it mean?
I can't even *imagine* how the UNcomputability explodes when facing something like human behavior.
It is simply, computationally *impossible* to have control of the variables. Nobody can even EXTIMATE which are the variables at stake, unlike the case of a simple algorithm!!! Let alone their interactions!

See @CE, I don't criticize the methods of science. I know the results are obtained with correct methods, and exactitude.
What lacks exactitude are the ASSUMPTIONS.. And you know it better than me, being a scientist.
Every demonstration, every proof, every theorem starts with: "Let's ASSUME...."
Something of a problem (the most part actually) has to be disregarded, or simplified, 'because otherwise it would be impossible to reason upon it.
You never study a problem, but a modellization of it. How far are you from reality? You can't know.

I feel science often forgets this point: so much involved as it is in the fascinating mechanisms and details of its work, it loses the humility of remembering its limits in regard of the Big Picture.
And these are COMPUTABILITY limits, not transcendental ones, so it shouldn't forget them!
How can I know that the studies you provide are actually working on a good model, if not even the autors can know it?
You speak of "likelihood".
Well, actually what is "more likely" is that they probably disregarded and simplified too many things in their assumptions.

This all is not to say you're wrong. On the topic problem, I think homosexuality is, to a large extent, innate.
But not completely - this is only my "impression" though. There are people who can "swing" both parts, so the environment plays a big role.
What I oppose of your posts, is that you can't accuse of ignorance people everytime they have different opinions.
Yes, I avoid those "proofs" on purpose, but not 'cause I'm ignorant, it's because I know their value.
They have a big value, can be of great aid and indication, they can even be "on the right path", but still, they're not Truth.
No external agent can teach me Truth. Nor mine is. I only try to see things as part of an unitarian, surely simplified but possibly coherent scheme that lives in my mind, that's all. I left arrogance behind in this field.

Originally posted by C Elegans
Again, if you personal opinion based of personal belief and subjective feelings is that homosexual people should not adopt and that their sexual orientation is a choice, fine - it's not my business how you choose to form your opinions as long as you don't hurt others, with you obviously wouldn't dream of doing. But - you cannot claim that your opinions are based on facts. It is a difference between ignoring scientific data because of your religion, political stance or personal feelings, and claiming scientific data is wrong. If you wish to claim it is wrong and that conclusions are wrong, you should be able to provide references of data supporting your opinion.

Scayde did a great job of speaking for me, so I'll leave that portion as is. It probably helps that we discuss these things here at home.

However, I certainly don't claim (or think) scientific research is "wrong." What I do believe is incorrect is that solid "facts" have been extablished pinpointing any one particular factor as being irrefutably responsible for homosexuality in a human being. I certainly don't engage in walling my self off from the results of studies and the hard work of researchers, CE, such as yourself. I think Scayde did a fine job of identifying some of the communication hang-ups we often face in these posts, and I hope that gives you an idea of my stance on the issue.

I certainly believe that many of my opinions are based upon facts. Unlike a researcher such as yourself, however, I don't consult peer journals, as that is not my particular vocation or calling. The facts are, to me:

1. Some people evidence homosexual leanings at a very early age.
2. Others seem to indulge in homosexuality later in life, sometimes in their late 40's and even early 50's.
3. Some people relate that they are equally attracted to both sexes.

Those are the facts that I am aware of. This, based upon my personal experience, reading material (popular magazines), and own thought processes, lead me to believe that a myriad of factors influence a person's sexual orientation. I'm not refuting the results of studies done, as Scayde stated in her post above. It's the interpetation of the data that I take issue with. I don't feel correlations amount to fact. As Scayde wrote, if such a genetic coding were to be found in all homosexuals (this would need to be a representative group of hundreds, taken from as many cultures/georgraphical locations/backgrounds as possible), then I would accept the assertion that homosexuality is determined genetically. Until then, it is only a theory to me, with the required evidence to advance it beyond a hypothesis.

@ Littiz: Even if science is an assumption in many regards, it's still the closest approximation to reality that we have. I have the same question for you as I have for Chanak:
If you don't feel that science is competent to answer these questions, then on what grounds do you answer them?

Because science indicates that something is true doesn't necessarily mean that it is, but it surely doesn't mean that it necessarily isn't, and we don't have anything better.

In relation to environmental factors, see what I posted above - it seems fairly conclusive to me. Could please indicate why you think it's not?

Originally posted by Chanak

Those are the facts that I am aware of. This, based upon my personal experience, reading material (popular magazines), and own thought processes, lead me to believe that a myriad of factors influence a person's sexual orientation. I'm not refuting the results of studies done, as Scayde stated in her post above. It's the interpetation of the data that I take issue with. I don't feel correlations amount to fact. As Scayde wrote, if such a genetic coding were to be found in all homosexuals (this would need to be a representative group of hundreds, taken from as many cultures/georgraphical locations/backgrounds as possible), then I would accept the assertion that homosexuality is determined genetically. Until then, it is only a theory to me, with the required evidence to advance it beyond a hypothesis.

I might be very wrong here, but I'm fairly sure CE is not saying that there is positive proof of genetic causes, but rather that there is negative proof to indicate biological causes - that is, that environmental factors can be effectively ruled out.
Of course, biological does not necessarily mean genetic - there's also the possibility of irregular in utero exposure to hormones, which could equally explain sexual orientation.

@Beowulf: It's highly possible a misunderstanding happened. I'm not exactly sure where it took place, but chalk it up to density on my behalf.

Of course, biological does not necessarily mean genetic - there's also the possibility of irregular in utero exposure to hormones, which could equally explain sexual orientation.

Scayde was mentioning this correlation the other day, and I find that interesting. As I recall, she mentioned high levels of testosterone in the mother as one such hormonal factor.

Originally posted by Littiz

See @CE, I don't criticize the methods of science. I know the results are obtained with correct methods, and exactitude.
What lacks exactitude are the ASSUMPTIONS.. And you know it better than me, being a scientist.
Every demonstration, every proof, every theorem starts with: "Let's ASSUME...."
Something of a problem (the most part actually) has to be disregarded, or simplified, 'because otherwise it would be impossible to reason upon it.
You never study a problem, but a modellization of it. How far are you from reality? You can't know.

OK, you're making several assumptions here. Firstly, you've assumed that human behaviour is directly analogous to the functioning of non-computable algorithms. Maybe it is, but if it's not, your whole reasoning is flawed, and I haven't seen you present any proof (nor do I particularly want to - this point doesn't really matter, except to demonstrate what I'm saying )

Secondly, you assume that the studies CE cited are themselves making assumptions, yet you admitted that you don't follow the links she gave. If you're going to claim that the studies are invalid based on the assumptions they make, then you have to show
a) what these assumptions are
b) how these assumptions do not accuratley reflect reality
c) how the disparity between the assumptions and reality is carried over to the results
d) that the lack of accuracy in the results are of sufficient magnitude to invalidate any conclusions made based on the results.
Please do so, with specific reference to the studies linked to. I don't care that, for example, many physics problems assume no air resistance - I want to know how the specific assumptions made by these studies compromise their validity.

I appreciate that this could take a while, but even one or two examples would strenghten your arguments a lot.

Finally, you make the assumption that it can't be known to what degree the use of assumptions removes the results from reality. Why is this?
If what you say is true, then a scientist allowing a margin of error in a study is doing no more than saying 'I hope I'm not wrong by more than this amount'.

I found a few articles on the subject in our national paper. The last one is particularly interesting.

http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/Arti ... y=marriage

http://www.choike.org/cgi-bin/choike/li ... th&id=1029


http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/Arti ... y=marriage

Warning: long answer to Beowulf! May skip to the conclusive list

First about the "skepticism part". Then you'll see that this part is "marginal" anyways.

Firstly, you've assumed that human behaviour is directly analogous to the functioning of non-computable algorithms. Maybe it is, but if it's not, your whole reasoning is flawed, and I haven't seen you present any proof

You're wrong, I've not assumed such a thing.
We don't know how human behavior is determined, while we do know how the algorithm works.
So, the point was: if a small, "simple" problem, in which all the variables (and their behavior) are totally and precisely KNOWN (as well as its complexity), isn't fully tractable because of exponentially growing ramifications, what can we say about a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT problem, of which the sole level of complexity can't be even guessed??
A problem of which you can't even know which are the variables (internal, external or whatever), that can have some degree of influence? Its tractability can only be worse (even if you use different means to study it).
If you negate this point, you affirm that human behavior is somehow "more predictable" than a simple, fully deterministic algorithm... well you can affirm it if you want, I won't stop you.

(don't get fouled by the word "computability". It can well be used out of the software context. Think in terms of "available time and memory". If you haven't enough of them to handle a problem, you can't totally dominate it. Try to write down ALL the possible human behaviors and see if you have enough space to do it. Let alone to test them all. Or.. try to elencate all the possible interconnections of the brain cells... then try to define how these interconnections can be altered... then FOR EACH OF THE METHODS: try to define how altering one of these interconnections may alter ALL the billions others, how altering TWO of them change the others, how altering a different couple changes things... etc)

Secondly, you assume that the studies CE cited are themselves making assumptions, yet you admitted that you don't follow the links she gave.

I think you didn't get the meaning of my whole post.
I don't need to see them to know they make assumptions. Nor do I need to counter these assumptions.
I'm not the one pretending to know Truths.
I just aknwoledge the fact that many scientists think they have proven something, in my book this translates in some more points to that theory, but not in the Truth of that theory.
But you'll get your examples.

First, let's clarify that assumptions are *NECESSARY* to any kind of scientific study.
To start, if you just focus on studying a single field, you are assuming that separating it from the rest of the "knowledgeable" will not compromise the validity of the results. This is already an assumption, and the cardinality of things -possibly correlated- that you're excluding is infinite.
Then specific assumptions take place.
You can't study geometry without assuming (with no proof), the validity of some basic concepts.
Nor mathemathics.
Nor physics. Here, to study matters "as they are" would be simply intractable, so you study semplifications of the problems, hoping the approximation will be enough to build structures or machines which manage to work as we'd want.
Engineers take care to translate this "faulty" theory into practice. And mind you, even so, machines work only in average by our desires. We can't foresee short circuits, we can't avoid plane-crashes... Modellizing every possible interaction with the external world, in order to prevent everything, would be impossible. We lack every possible mean to build such a complete model. So we build simplified models even for the operating modes, or states, of the machine. We cut TONS of possible interactions with the external world.
We ASSUME this model will be enough to control the intended behavior of the machine. What happens at best, is that the model is enough only "most of the times" (actually we know and accept it).
We are unable to *compute* every possible aspect and interaction, we can't claim to be in real control of the situation.

Social studies... They start with the basic assumption that the pool of people they work on can be omni-representative. This is an ENORMOUS assumption. To be omni-representative, tests should be made with all the people that live, have lived or will EVER live.
This is of course impossible. So studies have a statistical approach. I do recognize them the validity of statistics being a good guideline. But no more. You simply DON'T KNOW if an external individual can still behave out of the indications of the tests, forcing an alternative theory for everything.

My example:
Try testing the matter all around you. Anything you can find. The table, the glass. The walls. The street, your own hand.
The trees. You'll probably find that nothing is radioactive (or mesureably so). Even if you test the 99,99999% of the matter composing the world, you'd still probably find that nothing is radioactive.
If you then build a "mental model" of how the matter "behaves", the model will probably be grossly wrong. For not having tested a mere 0,000000000000001% or so of the total matter, you miss a good passage, or a positive font of doubts, for understanding the WHOLE structure of the matter and its rules.
Your mistake? You didn't test enough, though you tested A LOT. You ASSUMED your tests were enough to explain.

How many things could miss social studies of any kind, simply by focusing on SOME individuals, SOME social situations, SOME cultural environments (Consider even individuals and cultures that don't yet exist, but will exist in the future!)??
Well so many, that I can't even imagine their number.
How much the understanding of the whole frame can be flawed?
We don't know a lot of things, a lot of details, and a lot of mechanisms that lie under the surface of evidence.
How much those would be important? We don't know.
To me, every kind of "revolution" of what is now considered a "fact" in this field, or any other, is still possible or even probable.
Having a limited view can be really devastating for understanding. And unluckily, we DO have a limited view for things that we can't even compute. No, we have a limited view practically for all.
Hundreds of years ago, people - and scientists among them - believed Earth was flat. It wasn't a "procedural" mistake in their reasonments. It was what they could see. Earth, from the limited, on-ground perspective, seemed flat.
But having a whole community of people and scientists who believed it true, didn't make Earth flat.

What do we have nowadays? A scientific community who searches and works, judging on what they have available, and believing, ASSUMING, or simply, hoping, that what is perceivable and testable today is correct or enough to explain. What is seen may be correct, probably it is, but "enough"... surely is not.
Believing, assuming, hoping... ironically, these are the terms I would use for religion.
On a different level maybe, but even science needs, AT SOME POINT, these very things to procede!

Now, I don't follow CE's links for the following reasons:

• I completely trust CE's words about the conclusions of those studies, so no point in verifying them myself.
• I still have founded doubts given all the reasons above, though I'm not negating the usefulness of the scientists' work. I only recall its inherent limits.
• Even assuming common agreement on "facts", still my MORAL conclusions are different than CE's.
  She seems to say with those links: "These are the facts, if you knew them like I do you should form the same opinions as me".
  Well MORALITY is another thing. If I followed science to form my morality, I'd promote the Law of the Strongest. Actually it would seem to me the only derivable moral teaching.

You know, I've been following this debate about science and the conclusion one draws from it for a while, but I must say I don't think it's relevant to the subjects raised in the slightest.

Should same-sex marriage be allowed?

Should same-sex couples be allowed to adopt children?

What factors contribute to people being homosexual might very well be interesting to understand human nature. For me it holds no importance at all. I know I didn't choose.

The question that remains is everybodies personal opinion about homosexuality. We know it's always been around. We know that in history the outlook on homosexuality has been different then it is now. The views somebody has on homosexuality are in my opinion in direct connection to answering the question above. Hence my question to Chanak earlier; "What serious consequences might that be?".

This in regard to him stating;"Personally, if a child is naturally predisposed towards homosexuality, then the sexual orientation of their parent-figures will have little impact on their sexual identity, beyond the social obstacles they might face depending upon the kind of upbringing they receive. However, if a child is *not* disposed in this way, then being exposed to this environment could have serious consequences for him or her. "

I could provide links to sites concerning the Kinsey scale, I could provide links to "favorite treatments" of "curing" homosexuality, I won't. For one the treatments were and are gross, both in their "effectiveness" and in their brutality. If you believe that homosexuality is not a wishfull characteristic or "condition" (maybe you believe it's "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family" like Santorum, maybe it's a gut reaction), you will find arguments to oppose same-sex marriage, and same-sex couples adopting.

I provided a link earlier, for those that didn't follow it I'll repeat the link and quote the relevant parts.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/letters.php

"Our principles nag us and rebuke us and pull us and even drive us to think: gay marriage is right and fair.
But many of us don’t want gay marriage. Even I am slightly ambivalent, although I don’t like to admit it. And of course the reason I don’t like to admit it is that being ambivalent about gay marriage puts me at odds with my principles. So I end up supporting gay marriage without reservation, while at the same time suffering what I think is too-much-change trauma: having lived through the radical de-throning of marriage and the legitimation of divorce, I think I see gay marriage as a further “watering down” of the institution.......

......I think what we see at the National Review is people struggling with the principles that drive them. They don’t want gay marriage, but they feel pressured by the fact that their position conflicts with core principles of liberty and equality. So they’re engaging in what I’ve come to think of as logic-mongering, turning somersaults to come up with intricate, highly logical reasons not to do what they know ought to be done, by rights: intricate, highly logical reasons not to treat an entire class of people as equals before the law.".

To answer the questions:

Should same-sex marriage be allowed?

Yes, it is a civil-right, the culmination of love, the end stage of looking for your lost half(Plato's Symposium). It has nothing to do with religion.

Should same-sex couples be allowed to adopt children?

Yes. Is it, in present society, easier to be raised by a traditional family? Sadly, yes. Is it better to be adopted by a loving, stable same-sex couple then not to be adopted at all? Yes.

Well so far for my rant,

Bob.

Re: Warning: long answer to Beowulf! May skip to the conclusive list

Originally posted by Littiz
First about the "skepticism part". Then you'll see that this part is "marginal" anyways.

You're wrong, I've not assumed such a thing.
We don't know how human behavior is determined, while we do know how the algorithm works.
So, the point was: if a small, "simple" problem, in which all the variables (and their behavior) are totally and precisely KNOWN (as well as its complexity), isn't fully tractable because of exponentially growing ramifications, what can we say about a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT problem, of which the sole level of complexity can't be even guessed??
A problem of which you can't even know which are the variables (internal, external or whatever), that can have some degree of influence? Its tractability can only be worse (even if you use different means to study it).
If you negate this point, you affirm that human behavior is somehow "more predictable" than a simple, fully deterministic algorithm... well you can affirm it if you want, I won't stop you.

I've already said that this point is unimportant. So very quickly - yes, the human brain is more complicated than a short algorithm, but there are several such systems, a large number of which we do understand, to within a tiny margin of error. You assume that human behaviour is a non-computable system - notice I don't contest this - not one of the systems we can compute. Probably it isn't computable (I don't know or care), but even so, we don't need to assume that it's predictable to draw the conclusion the APA reached.

I think you didn't get the meaning of my whole post. I don't need to see them to know they make assumptions. Nor do I need to counter these assumptions.
I'm not the one pretending to know Truths.
I just aknwoledge the fact that many scientists think they have proven something, in my book this translates in some more points to that theory, but not in the Truth of that theory.
But you'll get your examples.

If you're claiming that a study is invalid (or at least not applicable) as a result of making assumptions, then I think you do need to show why these assumptions compromise the validity of the theory. Again I ask you - if you don't think science is competent to state the causes of homosexuality, then why do you think that you are?

Then specific assumptions take place. You can't study geometry without assuming (with no proof), the validity of some basic concepts.
Nor mathemathics.
Nor physics. Here, to study matters "as they are" would be simply intractable, so you study semplifications of the problems, hoping the approximation will be enough to build structures or machines which manage to work as we'd want.
Engineers take care to translate this "faulty" theory into practice. And mind you, even so, machines work only in average by our desires. We can't foresee short circuits, we can't avoid plane-crashes... Modellizing every possible interaction with the external world, in order to prevent everything, would be impossible. We lack every possible mean to build such a complete model. So we build simplified models even for the operating modes, or states, of the machine. We cut TONS of possible interactions with the external world.

I did say that I really don't care about the assumptions made in anything but these studies - that's way too big a discussion to get into. So ignore maths or physics or engineering, please.

Social studies... They start with the basic assumption that the pool of people they work on can be omni-representative. This is an ENORMOUS assumption. To be omni-representative, tests should be made with all the people that live, have lived or will EVER live.

No, that's not true. You'll notice that scientists don't claim results based on a single study, but rather a very large number of them over a long period of time. For example, in one single paragraph of that APA site CE linked to, it cited 20 seperate studies. I accept that due to statisctical clustering, certain behaviours may go unnoticed, but the odds of this across hundreds of studies carried out over the past half century is simply mind-bogglingly small.

Hundreds of years ago, people - and scientists among them - believed Earth was flat. It wasn't a "procedural" mistake in their reasonments. It was what they could see. Earth, from the limited, on-ground perspective, seemed flat.

This isn't true - it's known that Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato and Archimedes all knew the world was round - in fact the only ancient philosophers to believe otherwise were Leucippus and Democritus. I believe St. Thomas Aquinas and Dante also knew. The reason people believed otherwise was Church dogma - can you show that there's an equivalent to this in modern science?

What do we have nowadays? A scientific community who searches and works, judging on what they have available, and believing, ASSUMING, or simply, hoping, that what is perceivable and testable today is correct or enough to explain. What is seen may be correct, probably it is, but "enough"... surely is not.

No. Scientists have said that there are two factors which influence human behaviour - environmental and biological, roughly speaking, all those things outside the person and all those things inside the person. It's like saying that all numbers are either 2 or else not 2 - it's a statement of fact.
Now environmental factors can be ruled out -
Considering that instinces of homosexuality are essentially uniform across all cultures and environments, either
a) Cultural and environmental factors are the cause, in which case the factor(s) are identical both in quantity and quality in all cultures and environments, sice they produce essentially identical effects,
or
b) Cultural and evironmental factors are not the cause.

Since you believe environmental factors are the cause, please suggest which ones exactly, bearing in mind these must be identical, both in quantity and quality, throughout all environments.

Thus, environmental factors can be ruled out - do you accept this?

Now, I don't follow CE's links for the following reasons:

I completely trust CE's words about the conclusions of those studies, so no point in verifying them myself.

I still have founded doubts given all the reasons above, though I'm not negating the usefulness of the scientists' work. I only recall its inherent limits.

Even assuming common agreement on "facts", still my MORAL conclusions are different than CE's.
She seems to say with those links: "These are the facts, if you knew them like I do you should form the same opinions as me".
Well MORALITY is another thing. If I followed science to form my morality, I'd promote the Law of the Strongest. Actually it would seem to me the only derivable moral teaching.

If you trust CE's conclusion, then why are you directly contradicting them?
I accept if you have opinions the contradict science for your own personal, moral reasons, but if you do, please stop claiming that your opinions are based on scientific fact.
Finally, the 'law of the strongest' is not at all the only scientifically based system of ethics - for example, try reading 'When Others Appear on the Scene' by Umberto Eco, which is one good example.

Beowulf, I find it hard to reply, since you keep misinterpreting all that I write.
But there you are again, then I'll have to go

So very quickly - yes, the human brain is more complicated than a short algorithm, but there are several such systems, a large number of which we do understand, to within a tiny margin of error.

As I tried to explain, even a bit percentage of unexplained cases are due to a non-complete understanding of the phenomenon.
This conceals an "enormity of structure" behind the reasons of the phenomenon, that you can't imagine.
You don't know if you were actually modelling only the surface, or less. Normally the surface is "calm" and you understand it. But still what happens inside can alter its structure, and you discover that your understanding was GROSSLY inaccurate.
Science had to face this as long as it existed. CE can confirm this to you.

If you're claiming that a study is invalid (or at least not applicable) as a result of making assumptions, then I think you do need to show why these assumptions compromise the validity of the theory. Again I ask you - if you don't think science is competent to state the causes of homosexuality, then why do you think that you are?

Making assumptions means that the results can't be FULLY trusted. And assumptions are at the base of every scientific work, even if you try to counter it. Sorry but this is the sad truth.
It's not my job to show counter-example, it's the theory that must show its validity demonstrating that it can CONTROL TOTALLY every aspect of the problem. This is the only possible proof.
No theory in the world, not even the most tested and used for techinical purposes, can do it, due to the limits of scientific research, human brain (even when considered as a total of brains) and for computability reasons.
I NEVER SAID THAT I AM A VALID SOURCE OF TRUTH. HAVE YOU READ MY POST? I SAID *NOBODY* CAN BE A FONT OF TRUTH.

I did say that I really don't care about the assumptions made in anything but these studies - that's way too big a discussion to get into. So ignore maths or physics or engineering, please.

You have a strange way to debate. Ignore them if you want. These are examples of how the UNcomputability problem RESONATES in all fields of human knowledge. As I said earlier, to handle fields separately, as far as we know, can remove important interactions, or important GLOBAL rules for the understanding of the phenomenons. But still, we are only able to handle things separately, as you are proving!

No, that's not true. You'll notice that scientists don't claim results based on a single study, but rather a very large number of them over a long period of time. For example, in one single paragraph of that APA site CE linked to, it cited 20 seperate studies. I accept that due to statisctical clustering, certain behaviours may go unnoticed, but the odds of this across hundreds of studies carried out over the past half century is simply mind-bogglingly small.

I don't even try to reply 'cause it seems to me you don't accept what the scale of the problem is. 20 studies are nothing, if you consider the billions of billions of billions of configurations that those studies could never cover.
And I could also use again my reply to your first quote.

This isn't true - it's known that Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato and Archimedes all knew the world was round - in fact the only ancient philosophers to believe otherwise were Leucippus and Democritus. I believe St. Thomas Aquinas and Dante also knew. The reason people believed otherwise was Church dogma - can you show that there's an equivalent to this in modern science?

Those figures were exceptions. You could say I'm an exception now, as well, for what it's worth... The fact is, at those times the view was limited (that is, MORE limited than today. It is still limited, and always will be because of human finiteness).

No. Scientists have said that there are two factors which influence human behaviour - environmental and biological, roughly speaking, all those things outside the person and all those things inside the person. It's like saying that all numbers are either 2 or else not 2 - it's a statement of fact.

So it's a trivial statement, so it proves nothing. Show me a kind of control over the problem that you can obtain from this statement.

Since you believe environmental factors are the cause, please suggest which ones exactly, bearing in mind these must be identical, both in quantity and quality, throughout all environments.

Did you ACTUALLY read my post? I said I that IMHO is likely that homosexuality is FOR A GREAT EXTENT innate. But I DO NOT EXCLUDE that environment may influence. Or that things could be even completely different.
Excluding it would be a great form of ARROGANCE.
Studies have NOT the computability power, theoric completeness and manifest CONTROL of the issue to negate this.

If you trust CE's conclusion, then why are you directly contradicting them?
I accept if you have opinions the contradict science for your own personal, moral reasons, but if you do, please stop claiming that your opinions are based on scientific fact.

I trust her acting on good faith, I don't think that she lies or provides false resources.
My doubts lie far behind, if you have understood what I wrote.
EDIT: where the hell did I say that my opinions are based on scientific facts??!?!?! I'm opposing the absolute value of science!
Really Beowulf, your way of debating starts to sound suspect...

Finally, the 'law of the strongest' is not at all the only scientifically based system of ethics - for example, try reading 'When Others Appear on the Scene' by Umberto Eco, which is one good example.

At last, a point where we agree. It's no use to bring science as a model for morality. Each could interpret it as he'd want.
By understanding the mechanism of life, it's NOT IMPLIED that a form of life has more value, say, than a rock.
So I don't see the point of using "scientific facts", assuming they are, to justify morals.

Originally posted by Littiz

I don't even try to reply 'cause it seems to me you don't accept what the scale of the problem is. 20 studies are nothing, if you consider the billions of billions of billions of configurations that those studies could never cover.
And I could also use again my reply to your first quote.

I'm sorry Littiz, but you seem to be the kind of person that won't believe gravity exists unless every raindrop that falls is actually accounted for as falling. And when that has been established you'll still doubt gravity, 'cause you haven't seen proof of every leaf on the ground to have actually fallen because of gravity. Ad infinitum.

No Audace, you're the one not understanding now.
If you limit your experience to the rain that falls, you don't really see the reasons behind gravity. If you just look at gravity here, you could just think that things fall "cause Mother Earth calls everything to itself"
(And indeed it is was held as true in past!!!!!!!!)

You just had to consider the whole. Have you a direct perception of how gravity works between planets??? Or how a small object still generates attraction?
We can't ever know what part of the whole we are disregarding in our theories. It's much too big.

(damn it's late!!!!)

Well actually I do understand. You want to extra-polate everything into the absurd notion that you have to know the universal truth before you can make any usefull observations about the smaller picture. Clearly I don't agree.

Then again as i posted in my last rather sizeable post....what does it matter? I could easily concede your point that indeed we do not know what causes homosexuality. And I'd still ask the question that I already asked two times. Why does it matter in this context? What conclusions will you draw from this? What does this mean for same-sex marriage and same-sex couples adopting?

If you merily wish to dispute the finer nuances of science then why not open a new thread? Because the abstract that you are discussing here gives me very paranoid notions about the motives the people have for discussing it in this thread. And I know that that's not justified. I'm just not always a rational person.