Ishtarr
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4/30/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: xBullx Thanks for your input Ishtar. It seems there is almost always a scientific study to support whatever point a person wants to make. Almost like politics don't you think? Sociologically, yes, there are sociological studies to support just about anything you'd like to see sociologically supported. Biologically, not so much, like in this example where there aren't any biological studies to indicate homosexuality not existing, or being rare in a natural setting. There's a bunch of other examples where you'll very easily find both sides of the argument in sociology studies, while the natural studies are actually surprisingly consistent. In all actuality, natural studies doesn't seem to ever argue both sides of the argument unless politics, money, and exceptional complexity gets in the way, like for instance with the global warming issue. And even then, it's not so much the fact that the studies themselves argue opposite sides of the arguments but more that the people interpreting them insist on explaining them oppositely, and even with those, if you stick to the cold hard facts, they're almost never actually contradictory at all. It's just a matter of what conclusion you want to draw from the date, but the date it self is rather consistent. Ishtar
< Message edited by Ishtarr -- 11/11/2010 6:19:59 AM >
_____________________________
Aren't you glad we got smart bombs, it's a damn good thing that our bombs are clever It's a shame that our kids are dumb, but our bombs are smart, what a lucky thing now
|