Republicans vs. Sex Ed, round XXX

[-Jrabbit]

(Triggered by Sava's post)

[rant]Political conservatism and Christian fundamentalism are actually incompatible bedfellows on a lot of issues. If you really ask both groups to follow through on the philosophies/beliefs that their opinions are supposedly grounded in, there would be a lot of issues they'd differ on.

Abortion? That's murder. It's wrong to take a human life.
But the death penalty? Oh, they favor that.
Right to bear arms? Absolutely, the forefathers said so!
But it's OK for the government to trash the 4th amendment.

Logic ain't in it.

The impressive thing is that the GOP managed to cobble together a strong coalition based on a handful of emotionally charged issues. Now that things aren't so peachy (Iraq has settled into a long-term cash-eating destroyer of young lives, gas prices are through the roof, and interest rates are on the rise, among other things), some of these differences are coming into sharper relief.

If logic and consistency were part of the deal, then the Republicans would have actually reduced the size of the government over the past 6 years. Instead, they leveraged the legitimate concerns of 9/11 and emotional claptrap like No Child Left Behind into the biggest bureaucracy ever, with a crushing deficit as a kicker. And the ongoing cost of the Iraq "effort" isn't even on the books.

They accuse the democrats of being "tax and spenders," and there may be some truth in that. But the GOP just SPENDS. They don't even bother to fund it with tax dollars. They just put it on credit.

Politicians will say whatever gets them elected. That's why we should make it a policy to Never vote for an incumbent! (BOCTAOE)
[/rant]

[Ben Kenobi]

Because his religious beliefs (coming directly from his interpretation of Christian teachings) are what is driving his opinions regarding sex-ed.

What if one made the argument that abstinence reduces transmission of sexually transmitted diseases? Where does the proof of this statement require one to believe in Christ?

I agree with you that the majority of the people who are in favour of abstinence education are Christians, however, I would also say that the majority of those who are opposed to abstinence education are hostile to Christianity. So the allegations of bias cut both ways.

If the opposition were opposed on purely scientific grounds, then they wouldn't be charging their opponents with the sins of being Christian. Like loinburger said, such considerations ought to be irrelevant in the consideration of the facts.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What if one made the argument that abstinence reduces transmission of sexually transmitted diseases? Where does the proof of this statement require one to believe in Christ?

I agree with you that the majority of the people who are in favour of abstinence education are Christians, however, I would also say that the majority of those who are opposed to abstinence education are hostile to Christianity. So the allegations of bias cut both ways.

If the opposition were opposed on purely scientific grounds, then they wouldn't be charging their opponents with the sins of being Christian. Like loinburger said, such considerations ought to be irrelevant in the consideration of the facts.

The fact is... this is not about a logical, scientific opposition to sex ed.

So don't crap me now... NO NO NO

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
I've no doubt there are scientifically competent AO advocates out there, Ben. But based on what was said in the first post, it's pretty hard to say that about the ones that were shoehorned into this panel.

The point is that the panel failed to provide them for itself. Therefore it was given some (apparently sucky ones).

JM

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So let me see. The fact that the scientists have an ideology WRT to this one topic makes it irrelevant to the topic in discussion?

So why then is the fact that these abstinence folks are accused of having ideology have any relevance to the discussion? I agree, their particular ideologies should be irrelevant to the scientific inquiry, just that the same ought to be said for the panellists in question.

The AO panelists are there only because of their ideologies, not because of their scientific merit. If they were technically competent then their ideologies wouldn't matter. They aren't technically competent.

In the example I gave before, an analogous situation would be if Intel had strongarmed the conference or venue for the conference I'd attended, and by doing so had replaced some of the x86's more vocal critics with "panelists" from the Intel marketing department.

What ideological attachment? The only argument I have given in favour is that it works.

Not according to the evidence.

I thought ideology was irrelevant to this topic, so long as you presented scientific arguments.

Saying that you could (in theory) quote relevant statistics to support your argument is not quite the same thing as quoting relevant statistics to support your argument.

And they don't have a single speaker offering evidence contrary to the prevailing sentiment?

No, they don't.

Assuming that there are some competent folks out there, it's rather difficult to assert that the purely non- AO lineup of speakers arose solely due to chance.

Great, now please support the claim that there are some technically competent AO advocates out there.

There are probably some technically competent x86 advocates out there, but they're so few and far between that you're not likely to find one at any given conference. Likewise with technically competent AO advocates. If a position is extraordinarily difficult to defend then you probably won't find many people defending it (at least, you won't find many people defending it with evidence, but you may still find quite a few people defending it with ideology).

You are quite right. The way these conferences work is that they handpick the speakers.

"Unsolicited submissions that passed peer review" != "Handpicked speakers." The keynote speakers are handpicked, the majority of speakers are not.

You won't tend to see much debate or contrary opinions since that's not the point.

How many scientific conferences have you attended? The ones I've attended have had quite a bit of debate and have presented many contrary opinions. However, these contrary opinions have by and large been defensible -- I've yet to attend a conference where somebody tried to defend the x86.

The point is to have a chance to get a whole pile of scientists together who would otherwise not have a chance to collaborate.

If I want to collaborate with somebody then I'll send them an email. If I want to get into an argument with somebody then I'll go to a conference.

Truth involves the assessment of all facts, and not just the ones that confer with the prevailing notions. That's how science progresses because some folks are willing to look at junk or garbage dismissed by other folks.

Any day now the "creation scientists" will bring down the edifice of evilution.

And science is very, very political, especially where the issue of public funding comes into play.

Depends on where you're getting your funding. E.g., NFS grants are fairly apolitical, whereas DARPA grants/contracts are political insofar as you've got a few program managers funding their golden boys (so if a program manager uses a political ideology to select a golden boy then you could label grants originating from the program manager as being "political").

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank for Concerned Women for America, is a recognized authority on domestic issues, the United Nations, cultural and women's concerns.

What papers has she written? I did a search for her in the university's electronic journal center and it drew a blank.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What if one made the argument that abstinence reduces transmission of sexually transmitted diseases?

NOBODY is disputing this. It's practically a tautology: if you don't have sex, you won't contract a sexually transmitted disease. It disturbs me that you think that you need to make an "argument" for this fact -- I suspect that you've missed the point entirely.

[Arrian]

Or being deliberately obtuse.

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Arrian
Or being deliberately obtuse.

-Arrian

That's BK's life credo.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Nope, but we do say you have to wait until you are old enough. Not that different from abstinence, and I think the analogy is a very sound one.

Driving a car has the potential to kill people if done improperly. Sex has similar consequences.

No Ben. Sex ed does not teach you how to have sex, it teaches you about sex, risks and safety measures. Children learn pretty much the same thing about driving before they are old enough to get a licence - that is, the basic mechanics of driving (turn the ignition to start the car, gas makes it go, brake makes it stop, steering wheel controls the direction) and the importance of safety (always use your seatbelt, airbags are good, but still need to be used along with a seatbelt, don't drink and drive, etc).

Absitence only education is like saying you have to wait until you are old enough to drive, and until then, you must know absolutely nothing about cars or vehicular safety.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What if one made the argument that abstinence reduces transmission of sexually transmitted diseases? Where does the proof of this statement require one to believe in Christ?

What if one made the argument that the best way to avoid vehicular accidents is to never drive? Would teaching people that seatbelts provide no protection (or at least telling them to avoid them) in car crashes help reduce the number of fatalities on our roads?

Either way, you're free to make the assertion. Then, back it up with scientific evidence, get it peer reviewed and maybe you'll be invited into a scientific conference. Or you can just take the wasy way out and wave your Bible in peoples' faces until the religious right take note and force a conference to invite you, contrary to all aspects of the scientific method.

[Arrian]

What if one made the argument that the best way to avoid vehicular accidents is to never drive? Would teaching people that seatbelts provide no protection (or at least telling them to avoid them) in car crashes help reduce the number of fatalities on our roads?

The correct analogy is to teach people that they should never drive, and simply say nothing about seatbelts, airbags, and other safety features. Since, after all, those features are not 100% effective.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

The fact is... this is not about a logical, scientific opposition to sex ed.

So don't crap me now... NO NO NO

That's what this thread is about, whether there is a logical and scientific opposition to sex ed.

Not about waving bibles.

[Ben Kenobi]

No Ben. Sex ed does not teach you how to have sex, it teaches you about sex, risks and safety measures. Children learn pretty much the same thing about driving before they are old enough to get a licence - that is, the basic mechanics of driving (turn the ignition to start the car, gas makes it go, brake makes it stop, steering wheel controls the direction) and the importance of safety (always use your seatbelt, airbags are good, but still need to be used along with a seatbelt, don't drink and drive, etc).

Children may learn a little bit about the mechanics of driving, but they know very little about the risks, and dangers. I don't see the situation as very different between getting a child behind the wheel for the first time, and between sex ed. Except I would probably say that the kids know more about sex then they do about driving.

Absitence only education is like saying you have to wait until you are old enough to drive, and until then, you must know absolutely nothing about cars or vehicular safety.

No, not really. It says that if we are going to do formal instruction, (as we do with driving), that we wait until the child is old enough to make sense of what he is being taught.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Arrian


The correct analogy is to teach people that they should never drive, and simply say nothing about seatbelts, airbags, and other safety features. Since, after all, those features are not 100% effective.

But many abstinence-based sex ed programs specifically teach that condoms do not work, let viruses through, etc.

[loinburger]

I am still looking forward to the part where BK explains how he is to intimately familiar with the inner workings of scientific conferences despite never having attended a scientific conference.