Drug milkshake still no match for abstinence

[heretic888]

Personally, if somebody has a view contrary to mine and I believe I have scientific "proof" for my stance, Ill show that proof and let the other person either debate that proof, show a contrary study or just ignore it...I dont start out by saying "Oh yeah? Show me some proof for that, otherwise Im right and I win!" Which is the way many people come off. If you believe you have the goods, show them and let them stand for themselves......if its not worth the time then just let the discussion remain a friendly difference of opinion.

Appeal to Pity

 

[Tgace]

Appeal to Pity

http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats/#s-statistics
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/5653.html

 

[heretic888]

http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats/#s-statistics

Been there, done that.

What did I say before, Tgace?? This is the kinda stuff you learn the first day in an applied statistics class. This most assuredly isn't news to anyone that has experience in the field, not even to a pathetic neophyte such as myself.

I know this may come off as a shock, as you apparently haven't been trained in these sorts of things --- but this is a problem with the statistician, not the statistic.

Just as, for example, a researcher (whether intentionally or not) conducts a quasi-experiment (meaning, he or she did not randomly assign the treatment groups) and passes it off as "good science" --- that is a problem with the scientist, not the science.

Yes, things like non-random sampling, incomplete wording, experimental bias, confounding variables, correlation versus causation, and so on are all important things to take into account. And, again, its something that any statistician or research worth his (or her) salt does already.

This is why it is important that I stress the value of peer review. The kinda "bad statistics" you're citing --- the politically-motivated questioning, leading the participant tactics, non-random sampling, and so on --- all gets sniped down in peer-reviewed journals. Only in things like popular newspapers, media outlets, and non-journal websites do these things go by without worry.

Why, you ask?? Simple. The statistician that puts them forward in such mediums doesn't have to worry about fellow statisticians analyzing his methods and data. That shiznatch don't fly in the scientific journals, though.

No cigar, methinks.

 

[Tgace]

Some bottom lines:

Emotions and moral commitments influence everyone's reasoning and judgement to some extent.

Any experts who claim to be without bias are fooling themselves or trying to fool you.

 

[heretic888]

Some bottom lines:

Emotions and moral commitments influence everyone's reasoning and judgement to some extent.

Any experts who claim to be without bias are fooling themselves or trying to fool you.

Thus, once again, the importance of peer review. Replicability, too. :ultracool

 

[rmcrobertson]

To echo the heretical:

My FIRST day in stats, Univ. of Colorado, John Forward presiding:

"What you folks need to understand is that if you have one foot in a fire, and the other in a bucket of liquid oxygen, statistically speaking you're perfectly comfortable."

 

[Tgace]

"Any experts who claim to be without bias are fooling themselves or trying to fool you."

Even those who believe that science and statistics are a perfect model of reality?

 

[heretic888]

Even those who believe that science and statistics are a perfect model of reality?

Would you mind directly quoting when and where anyone on this thread said that science and statistics are "a perfect model of reality"?? Or is the burden of proof too much of a burden for you?? :shrug:

 

[Tgace]

Just following the "thread" of thought here which seems to be heading into how much we should trust science as an accurate model for the setting social policy is all....
:asian:

 

[Tgace]

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC32/Fickesn.htm

If we demand certainty from science before setting policy,
we ask too much of science and too little of policy makers

 

[heretic888]

In other words, dodge the question with a link and thinly-veiled accusations. Guess it is too much of a burden, after all.

All too familiar with the "science is not ultimate!" poo-bahs, I'm afraid. Much of which, by the way, I happen to agree with. Critiques of "representational truth" are surely to be applauded, but shouldn't overextend themselves. I consider myself a contextualist moreso than an objectivist, but whatever.

Sorry, tgace, the myth of the given is nothing new here. People have been tossing that one around for more than a half-century. But, in this case, I suspect its being superficially used in a rather roundabout fashion to get this monkey (namely, the burden of proof) off of somebody's back.

Oh, pshaw.

 

[Tgace]

What was it "I" was supposed to be proving here??? Ill look for it if you can point it out.

:asian:

 

[heretic888]

Even those who believe that science and statistics are a perfect model of reality?

No one on this thread ever made this claim.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm not sure I understand why the nature of a mode of understanding reality--science--that has been part of popular discussion for well over a century and a half, been popularized againn and again by guys like Carl sagan, and been made part of pop culture via movie like, "Jurassic Park," and, "Contact," should be considered surprising to everyone.

But to make a sharp left turn--and I do mean Left--back onto track, I will take drug policies based on repeatable observation and experiment to support theories that are subsequently checked and rechecked, whatever the extent to which results and theories are in the end based upon probabilities and fallible human thought, over drug policies generated by an administration (Ronald Reagan's) that relied upon fundamentalist Christian ideology and right-wing dogma as put on the President's agenda according to the whims of the astrologer that Nancy Reagan apparently hired.

And I will take them any day.

 

[Tgace]

Cant really argue against that....other than politics, unfortunately, involves a lot of @#$% other than the issue at hand.

:asian:

 

[Flatlander]

Mod Note:

Folks, let us please return to the topic at hand.

Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Well, I assume condom usage is on topic, as we're talking about abstinence, AIDS and whatnot. I'll return to it if I may.

As has been claimed, condom use, for those who refuse sexual abstinence, is one of the most effective methods for preventing pregnancy and the and spread of STD's...HIV included, regardless of the ridiculous "latex pore" suggestions we noted earlier.

For those of you willing to accept research, and there's a wealth of it, this notion of efficacy has been born out by a number of studies. Condom use is endorsed by the National Institute of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the United States Agency for International Development. Those organizations met in July of 2001 after having pored over 138 peer reviewed studies before coming to their conclusions. Since then further research has confirmed their findings.

The CDC sums up these findings thus, "The body of research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and conclusive. In fact, the ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in “real-life” studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies."

It further states, "Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate conclusively that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection."

Will people use them? They're no fun, after all. In Thailand in 1991 an aggressive pro-condom program was instituted which increased usage nearly four fold to 94%. STD rates in clinics dropped dramatically, and HIV infection among Thai military recruits dropped. Conclusion? Condoms work for the sexually active, and people will use them if properly educated as to their practicality.

AH! But if we teach our youth to use condoms, they'll start having sex earlier, correct? Nope.

The World Health Organization evaluated 47 programs worldwide and found in fifteen studies sex education had no effect on STD transmission and pregnancy rates. Another 17 studies showed it decreased STD and pregnancy rates, reduced the number of sexual partners a sexually active person had contact with, and delayed the age of sexual activity.


But these studies tell some of us what we don't want to believe, and ought therefore be ignored. Right?



Regards,


Steve

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

Baldo M, et al. Does Sex Education Lead to Earlier or Increased Sexual Activity in Youth? Presented at the Ninth International Conference on AIDS, Berlin, June 6-19, 1993. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1993.

Alan Guttmacher Institute. Sex and America's Teenagers. New York: The Institute, 1994.

Committee on HIV Prevention Strategies in the United States, Institute of Medicine. No Time to Lose: Getting More from HIV Prevention. Washington, DC: The Institute, 2000.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3323101.html

 

[Tgace]

Heck I was taught about condoms in school back in 84-85, good old health class, a rubber and a bannana...have they stopped?

 

[Ray]

Heck I was taught about condoms in school back in 84-85...have they stopped?

As in the words of Archie Bunker: ...kids should have to learn about sex on the street corner, like I did.

 

[Tgace]

Pretty good article about sex ed. in todays schools...

http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/sexedtext.html