"Traditional Morality" vs. "Liberal Permisiveness"

[PoppingTom]

I don't know what Kinsey's agenda in sexuality was either. What I know is that his work in sexuality was not science by any scientist's definition, including his own. Having made a professional reputation (honestly) in the science of entomology, he abused that reputation in his published work on sexuality. He claimed to have not biased his sample when he clearly had. Kinsey insisted his results were a fair and unbiased sampling of American views on sexuality when they weren't. And he knew it all along. He wasn't publishing science as he claimed. He was publishing what amounted to little more than his own opinion, veiled in the words and methods of science, but backed by his own biased sampling. In that, he was a fraud. If he had prefaced his reports with his true methods of research, he would have been laughed out of academia. (Which might explain that omission.)

.....

He tossed huge amounts of his data that didn't support his agenda, whatever it was. Thus, his reports were crap.

Again, I doubt that his goal was to be accepted as a serious scientific working sexual researcher, only committed to science premises. Thus, he would have taken the faith of Mosher and others. I think he wanted research in sexuality to be accepted anyway, and that's why he made his research more kind of politically accepted, less scientific.

You may call his report crap, but this doesn't make him a fraud. Especially if you don't know his agenda.

 

[amicus]

"Sociology is not, cannot be, and should not be a science."

Read more: http://www.coursework.info/GCSE/Soc...not_be__and_should_L825755.html#ixzz0l8BVENQw

~~~

Egads, the link appeared all by itself...I had planned to write, "Do your own damned Research!"

I guess I can leave it....

There is a science of sex, as I was reminded of last evening: "Szing up Sperm" a NatGeo special.

It was, as National Geographic is, a 'dumbed down' version, intended for entertainment to attract an audience...still, there were some things to be gleaned...

The natural agression of the male and the docile female, as evidenced through observing children, just one avenue, was confirmed somewhat by the agressive sperm fighting like hell, all 250 million of them, to fertilize the female egg, safely esconsced and waiting....

I mean, after all, down to the bare bones, that is what sex is all about, eh?

A political interpretation drawn from an observation within the program, that any one of those 250 million sperm could have fertilized the egg and each one would be different and unique in all of time and history as an individual.

That is, of course, if that brand new human life is permitted to survive.

"Things you do...." (see my sig line)

Amicus Veritas

edited to add: . "Kinsey, Alfred." A Dictionary of Sociology.

 

[stephen55]

EO Wilson won the Pulitzer for On Human Nature, people don't disrespect Darwin because all he specialized in were some itty bitty finches then talked about human evolutionary history. The finches were important for Descent of Man same as the ants are important for On Human Nature. Wilson put his study of biological science into theories of social organization, Kinsey really didn't at all, he just recorded data and created a fictional science to deal with that data, I guess we call it 'sexology'. That's why Kinsey's a footnote(basically akin to Newton doing alchemy after creating physics) and Wilson has a vibrant legacy in hard and soft biology, psychology, cog and social science.

LaRocha, I can't help but feel you're not doing your homework.

On Human Nature is a 1979 Pulitzer prize winning book by the Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson. The book tries to explain how different characteristics of humans and society can be explained from the point of evolution. (Wikipedia)

As a biologist who's professional project was myrmecology (the study of ants) he wrote On Human Nature as his support of sociobiology. His Pulitzer Prize was for General Non-Fiction. There is no Pulitzer Prize for Science.

Darwin did not specialize in some itty bitty finches. He did not specialize in anything. He was a naturalist by inclination, not education. He started out in medical school and leaving that was sent by his physician father to Christ's College, Cambridge, to study for a Bachelor of Arts in preparation for theological studies. While at Oxford he read John Herschel's book A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy (the physics of the day). Darwin was impressed with it's description of natural philosophy as understanding nature through inductive reasoning based on observation.

When he got his B.A., he had plans to study geology but instead accepted a position (unpaid) as companion to Captain Robert FitzRoy of HMS Beagle, which was going to sail to South America to chart the coastline.

The voyage was planned for two years and lasted five. Darwin spent most of his time ashore, gathering specimens, fossils and studying the geology of the various landfalls.

The finches of the Galapagos Islands were mentioned in The Origin of Species , in which he wrote far more about fancy pigeons. They were not part of The Descent of Man.

Kinsey didn't just record data, he created most of it. He didn't create the fictional science of sexology. He created lousy data and called it science.

Newton didn't create physics. Back then, it was called natural philosophy and many others preceded him; Aristotle, Galileo and Hooke for example.

As for Newton's alchemy, it was the forerunner of chemistry. The Alchemists, in the usual sense, tried to turn base metals into gold, sought Spiritual Enlightenment and The Philosopher's Stone, the substance thought necessary for the transmutation of the physical body (Saturn or lead) into (Gold) with the goal of attaining immortality.

None of them, including Newton, succeeded, but their work did lay the foundation for modern chemistry. Newton was working on alchemy before, during and after working on natural philosophy.

On a more medical note, twice during his life Newton became mentally ill, both times exhibiting symptoms that would today be described as psychosis. "Put away" by family and his very few friends, he recovered slowly, both times. Modern thinking on those two events suggest that Newton was simply poisoning himself with mercury. As one of the alchemical stock in trade, mercury was used in various ways, including recovering gold from various gold containing substances. This was usually accomplished by heating the mixture after the gold was adsorbed by the mercury (not absorbed) and driving off the mercury as a gas. In other words, Newton became mad as a hatter.

As for Wilson's legacy in soft biology, what is soft biology?

 

[LaRocha]

soft biology =
For the book by E. O. Wilson, see Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.
Part of the Biology series on
Evolution

Sociobiology is a synthesis of scientific disciplines which attempts to explain social behavior in animal species by considering the Darwinian advantages specific behaviors may have. It is often considered a branch of biology and sociology, but also draws from ethology, anthropology, evolution, zoology, archaeology, population genetics and other disciplines. Within the study of human societies, sociobiology is closely related to the fields of human behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology.

I didn't say he won the Pulitzer Prize for science, I said he was the first scientist to do science and social theory, that's why he has a legacy in science and Kinsey doesn't.

EO Wilson is Darwin Part 2, Darwin's core study of the natural world came by way of studying finches, EO Wilson was blind in one eye and studied ants from his childhood until he received his PHD. What they studied was important for their future work, but it's more important that each used their very narrow field of research, the rigor that came along with making detailed observations, to say something in the broad context.

Newton created physics when he joined math with observations of astronomy.

Kepler had proposed three Laws of Planetary motion based on the systematics that he found in Brahe's data. These Laws were supposed to apply only to the motions of the planets; they said nothing about any other motion in the Universe. Further, they were purely empirical: they worked, but no one knew a fundamental reason WHY they should work.

Newton changed all of that. First, he demonstrated that the motion of objects on the Earth could be described by three new Laws of motion, and then he went on to show that Kepler's three Laws of Planetary Motion were but special cases of Newton's three Laws if a force of a particular kind (what we now know to be the gravitational force) were postulated to exist between all objects in the Universe having mass. In fact, Newton went even further: he showed that Kepler's Laws of planetary motion were only approximately correct, and supplied the quantitative corrections that with careful observations proved to be valid.

 

[xssve]

Mosher was an impressive person. She worked in a field dominated by men, in a time when medical science had declared women to be "delicate" and "hysterical."

When she attended college, it was actually an accepted idea that while men breathed by expanding the diaphragm and women inhaled by expanding the chest. Mosher pointed out that the reason for this was that women were observed while wearing a corset. A full set of women's clothing, including the corset could weigh fourteen pounds and was stiflingly hot.

She was one of the first to put forth the idea that menstruation was a natural function and no reason to be a disability. She claimed that most of the pain and discomfort was caused by improper clothing and lack of exercise.

The convoluted justifications that the status quo comes up with to defend their demented fetishes are truly fascinating.

 

[colddiesel]

Darwin's core study of the natural world came by way of studying finches.

[/I]

Barnacles !

 

[Pure]

amicus source

"Sociology is not, cannot be, and should not be a science."



Read more: http://www.coursework.info/GCSE/Soci...#ixzz0l8BVENQw
~~~

ami is quoting from an anonymous essay advertised for sale online, to students; and it received a B, when the original student did it.

whatever the merits of the position, ami is either unaware of them, or apparently unable to articulate them. is there any reason, off hand, that the prevalence of child abuse, and its sequelae later in life--e.g. alchoholism-- cannot be studied, on a macro basis--i.e. incidence statistics-- by sociology, as a science? is there a reason a link between poverty and crime (if there is one) cannot be explored by data collection, interviews, etc. the results may be objectively verified and methods --e.g. interview protocols--adjusted to better elicit the truth.

i'd ask also, is 'polling' a science; it seems to have gotten a lot more accurate, and it used by all major parties: so telephone or real life interviews and sampling are potentially 'scientific' objective processes; the results, i.e. behavioral outcomes can be used to adjust further research. IF the voters overall turn out NOT to have been adequately characterized, it's traceable to such things as use of landlines only, for example, and underrepresenting cell phone users.

ami's pre history is based on Auel's novels, and his current history on Sarah Palin speeches, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Weekly Standard. go figure.

 

[oggbashan]

Barnacles !

No. Finches. The ones he studied are precious treasures in London's Natural History Museum.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

"Sociology is not, cannot be, and should not be a science."



Read more: http://www.coursework.info/GCSE/Soci...#ixzz0l8BVENQw
~~~

ami is quoting from an anonymous essay advertised for sale online, to students; and it received a B, when the original student did it.

whatever the merits of the position, ami is either unaware of them, or apparently unable to articulate them. is there any reason, off hand, that the prevalence of child abuse, and its sequelae later in life--e.g. alchoholism-- cannot be studied, on a macro basis--i.e. incidence statistics-- by sociology, as a science? is there a reason a link between poverty and crime (if there is one) cannot be explored by data collection, interviews, etc. the results may be objectively verified and methods --e.g. interview protocols--adjusted to better elicit the truth.

i'd ask also, is 'polling' a science; it seems to have gotten a lot more accurate, and it used by all major parties: so telephone or real life interviews and sampling are potentially 'scientific' objective processes; the results, i.e. behavioral outcomes can be used to adjust further research. IF the voters overall turn out NOT to have been adequately characterized, it's traceable to such things as use of landlines only, for example, and underrepresenting cell phone users.

ami's pre history is based on Auel's novels, and his current history on Sarah Palin speeches, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Weekly Standard. go figure.

Polling, social studies, interview techniques - all can produce valid results BUT the provisos are often omitted in newspaper reports of the studies.

It is possible to predict how people will behave in limited ways but there is always an element of uncertainty. How large that uncertainty is can be quantified.

Unfortunately for politicians, polls for elections usually have an element of uncertainty e.g about 3% either way, that is greater than the difference between the votes necessary to win or lose.

Og

 

[stephen55]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaRocha View Post

Darwin's core study of the natural world came by way of studying finches.

To which colddiesel replied...

Barnacles !
*******

No. Finches. The ones he studied are precious treasures in London's Natural History Museum.

Og

*******
It was an inside joke, Og. (If you got it, I apologize.)

After Darwin came up with his ideas on natural selection, he didn't publish for about two decades, partly because he wasn't 100% sure of his theory and also because he worried about the reception he would get. He was wrong about not being correct but he certainly was right about his reception!

During those two decades he spent about eight years studying barnacles. See Darwin and the Barnacle: The Story of One Tiny Creature and History's Most Spectacular Scientific Breakthrough, Stott, Rebecca, W. W. Norton & Company; First American Edition edition (May 2003)

 

[LaRocha]

Barnacles !

Boners!!

 

[Pure]

urls on kinsey,

con and pro. the "fraud" charge. the "pedophile" charge. the "made gays respectable" charge, the "corrupted our nation" charge. Kinsey institute reply. etc.
====

this critical essay relies on Reisman, whose interview is following]
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/KINSEY.TXT

KINSEY'S FRAUD AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR SOCIETY

===

http://www.whale.to/b/reisman3.html

Fighting the Kinsey Fraud:
Interview with Dr. Judith Reisman
1998


Dr. Judith Reisman is president of the Institute for Media Education and author of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (1990); Soft Porn Plays Hardball (1991); and the explosive 1998 exposé Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences. A talented musician and songwriter, she has produced educational music histories for museums in Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and Cleveland, and during the 1970s she produced music videos for Captain Kangaroo, the long-running children’s television program.

Dr. Reisman received her Ph.D. in communications from Case Western Reserve University and has lectured and testified the world over to professional organizations, legislatures, parliaments, and courts regarding the power and effect of images and the media to alter human behavior
===

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/controversy 2.htm

Allegations about Childhood data in the 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male

===
http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/about/Movie-facts.html

http://thelastoutpost.com/video-1/mind-control/kinseys-paedophiles.html
video attacking Kinsey.

============
Article and bio on K. reasonably neutral.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0412.larson.html
The Joy of Sexology: Does it matter that Alfred Kinsey enjoyed his work more than he let on?
By Christina Larson

 

[xssve]

Old "erototoxin" Reisman. She probably thinks women breathe from the chest too.


When are you morons going to figure out that everything that comes out of the right wing corporate media machine's mouth is spin, distortion, and outright lies?

And you trust these people, that's what baffles me - don't you ever verify anything?

You better start, 'cause after Citizens United, it's only going to get worse.

 

[amicus]

"...When are you morons going to figure out that everything that comes out of the right wing corporate media machine's mouth is spin, distortion, and outright lies?..."

This is priceless coming from xssve...

"When are you morons going to figure out that everything that comes out of the Left Wing Corporate Media Machine's..."

Which is why one often chooses to eliminate source links and proceed with just reason and logic. However, since the Progressive Liberal Left eschews any reference to universalities, going so far as to even challenge the etymology of words, preferring instead to emphatically assert that there is no truth, no fundamental morality or ethics and that all is relative and situational, then there is no recourse to civil discussion concerning anything.

You might need some assistance digesting the above....try the dictionary.



Amicus Veritas

 

[stephen55]

Ayn is rolling...again...

Perhaps we should accept the possibility that everything from the extreme right and the extreme left is likely to be spin, distortion, and outright lies.

As to whether each extreme has a Corporate Media Machine...I leave that to others to investigate. ...run, run for your lives...those are code words...

For those of us who accept that in between those extremes there are far right, right, middle, left and far left...not so fast, ami...we will continue to read the newspapers, magazines and op-eds, surf the net, watch TV, listen to radio and generally think for ourselves.

 

[TxRad]

This is priceless coming from xssve...

"When are you morons going to figure out that everything that comes out of the Left Wing Corporate Media Machine's..."

Which is why one often chooses to eliminate source links and proceed with just reason and logic. However, since the Progressive Liberal Left eschews any reference to universalities, going so far as to even challenge the etymology of words, preferring instead to emphatically assert that there is no truth, no fundamental morality or ethics and that all is relative and situational, then there is no recourse to civil discussion concerning anything.

You might need some assistance digesting the above....try the dictionary.



Amicus Veritas

A dictionary is not required.

This is just more of your normal, If I can't convince you with fraudulent facts then I'll try to baffle you with linguistic bullshit.

 

[stephen55]

Quote:
"Sociology is not, cannot be, and should not be a science."

Read more: http://www.coursework.info/GCSE/Soci...#ixzz0l8BVENQw

I get such a kick out of Friend of Truth's posts. The essay that he links is a defense of sociology as a social science, not an attack. The title of the essay, quoted above, is just the starting point. Once again ami, isn't the truth a bitch?

Moving on...

The natural agression (sic) of the male and the docile female, as evidenced through observing children, just one avenue, was confirmed somewhat by the agressive (sic) sperm fighting like hell, all 250 million of them, to fertilize the female egg, safely esconsced (sic) and waiting....

Where does he go when he thinks up this drivel?
Wherever it is, there is no dictionary....

 

[LaRocha]

Sociology is embarrassing. Geography is the proper study of groups and demographics following data collection, anthropology takes care of the mumbo jumbo aspects of interpreting that data.

 

[stephen55]

However, since the Progressive Liberal Left eschews any reference to universalities, going so far as to even challenge the etymology of words, preferring instead to emphatically assert that there is no truth, no fundamental morality or ethics and that all is relative and situational, then there is no recourse to civil discussion concerning anything.

Amicus Veritas

What the hell, it's Friday, so it's time to kick back and kick ami...again.

For the uninitiated, here's ami's idea of civil discussion...

For those of you who cannot understand the cruelty of Communism that tortured and murdered over fifty million people or its' ugly step-sister, National Socialism, Nazism; if you cannot comprehend the true cruelty that some inflict on others, read Stephen55's diatribes and understand that he advocates the same philosophy by which the Russians and the Germans rationalized their actions against their fellow men.

I often post my Canadian small "c" conservative opinions, such as all people deserve decent health care and that equality for all means exactly what it says.

 

[LaRocha]

Stephen's uncircumcised too.

And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.

 

[xssve]

This is priceless coming from xssve...

"When are you morons going to figure out that everything that comes out of the Left Wing Corporate Media Machine's..."

Which is why one often chooses to eliminate source links and proceed with just reason and logic. However, since the Progressive Liberal Left eschews any reference to universalities, going so far as to even challenge the etymology of words, preferring instead to emphatically assert that there is no truth, no fundamental morality or ethics and that all is relative and situational, then there is no recourse to civil discussion concerning anything.

You might need some assistance digesting the above....try the dictionary.



Amicus Veritas

Nah, all I need is a silage fork and a wheelbarrow for all your bullshit and strawmen.

Your "universalities" are what everyone else knows as "bias's", look it up.

There is a fundamental morality and ethics, I argue nothing else, it's simply beyond your limited comprehension.

There is nothing more relativistic than your philosophy - it begins and ends with ami.