I currently have a thread where I seek out the best attempts at non-fallacious arguments against SSM.
I invite you all to take a look, and to respond. I especially invite eeziduzi to provide a fantastic example, or (a link to one) as I honestly don’t think a well argued and cited case would run less than several hundred pages of reading.
What they have in common isn’t their goal, rather their process. I’m sorry you aren’t reasonable enough to see that.
Of course not because in science nothing is proved. Or are you still not understanding? So, it’s observational. Your point? There are many observational sciences.
Sorry, I’ll just be sure to redefine your terms as I read your posts in whatever manner you meant them to be. My mistake. Yes, it’s quite obvious I have no understanding of a theory in science, or indeed science at all since I’m the one advocating for scientific proof of a theory, despite having said that such doesn’t exist.
As I said, and as you failed to understand, I was asking if that’s what you meant - namely in your hypothetical.
No, twice was enough. I can only handle so much.
I can’t let this go unchallenged. There is no evidence that pedophilia is genetic. If you assert otherwise, then please cite your sources. Because treating pedophiles is a major industry where I live, in fact the largest employer, and I am sure your claim will be news to folks who work there, and I will personally make sure it gets delivered.
Ah, the sun revolves around the earth canard. 
And if you are going to use the scientific method to persuade us as a society that it is a good idea to take civil rights away from people (as has happened in California) you better be damned sure to get the science right, or have your feet held to the fire!
Curious. Which of us is “stretching” here again? There’s no “stretch” in what you quoted there. Given what appears to me to be condescending, if flip-flopping, pedantry concerning proper scientific terminology after ashman165 corrected you, one would imagine that the presence of the term “hypothesis” – as in “kin selection hypothesis” – would be a dead giveaway that I had not claimed it had been scientifically established as demonstrable, observational fact, let alone had reached the vaulted status of “theory”.
Another curious factor concerning the kin selection hypothesis is that the concept it describes, while remaining only a hypothesis, is generally not challenged or considered particularly controversial when employed to try to explain other phenomena that remain at this time otherwise inexplicable without it, but when it is brought into a discussion of the possible genetic etiology of homosexuality, all of a sudden it becomes a “stretch” or “far-fetched” or perhaps “factitious” for some crypto-anti-homosexual-rights activists – a group into which I do not place you, for that would require the reality of psychic powers which I deny exist – who choose to moderate their language for political forensic purposes, while more candid and less guarded individuals elect to employ words like “lie”, “God-hating bullshit”, and “fuck you, faggot, you’ll burn in a lake of fire for all eternity!” and the like. In such cases, it’s not always easy to decide which approach is to be preferred.
First, let me apologize for and retract the words “proved” and “universally”; they were ill-chosen and, more importantly, are factually incorrect.
However, it is indeed a well-established scientific fact that, even as a scientific critic of the related but independent “maternal immunization response hypothesis” writes in the journal Biology Letters:
In other words, while one specific hypothesis offered as a potential explanation of the “later fraternal birth order” finding was indistinguishable from the null hypothesis in one of Rahman’s studies, the fact remains that the “later fraternal birth order” discovery remains a fact.
That statement is inconsistent with the established facts unless one utterly excludes the possibility that that the term “genetic” could ever be applied to an entire species’ entire genome. Note the caveats in my post that you’re quoting, for example:
In other words, I hold that it is intellectually honest to put what I wrote that way, at least given the caveats I provided.
not_alice, I believe you have erred in your choice of target for that comment. I don’t see how ashman165 ever suggested anything of the sort. I don’t see how that case could be justified, so perhaps it was a simple mistake and you meant to address yorick73, and not_ashman165 (or something like that…)
A careful reading would immediately show anyone with any critical reading skills that this is not anything I’ve suggested.
If, however, the obvious escaped your attention, I’ll explain: I would never presume to do that with science. Science is neutral on what should be, instead dealing with what actually is. Moreover, it should be clear from my tone that I was largely sarcastic. Now, in a serious vein, I think he might have been on his way to a reasonable point. But to make it clear he needs more information, and an ability to stop changing between the layterm “prove” and the scientific term “prove” as they are completely different concepts. He attempts to use the layterm in a field of science by saying that it’s not proved, and then use that to claim that science says something isn’t true, rather only a theory. Then he uses the scientific term “theory” in a the lay sense to show that scientists are only hypothesizing about something, which isn’t the case.
In short, he’s using lay-proof as a statement of science, and using the scientific term theory in the lay-sense. It’s quite deceptive, whether by intent or ignorance I don’t know.
ETA: Ambushed, well, ambushed my point while I was making it. You’re a crafty little bugger you are. Anyway, thank you; you’re correct.
Why not argue that heterosexuality is a choice?
I think you misunderstood me. I was not claiming that you were suggesting that this hypothesis was considered a theory. As I’ve already explained I misused the term theory but I think anyone reading my response could figure out what I meant. ashman165 suggested, incorrectly, that I was calling this hypothesis a theory in the correct scientific usage of the term and that my being dismissive was akin to dismissing evolution or the big bang.
Okay, so since I disagree with you I must be a crypto-anti-homosexual-rights activist. Actually I did not realize we were talking about civil rights. We can try to have an honest debate without the implicit name calling. There are many ideas as to what causes homosexuality but you seem so willing to defend this particular theory and insult those who may disagree. If I were psychic maybe I’d see that you are trying to put this idea in the most positive light because it somehow provides for some greater purpose for the existence of homosexuality.
I was not arguing that the point you quoted was incorrect. I admit not being clear on this point. I was not disputing the link between birth order and increased chance of being born gay. I was pointing out that there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that the mechanism is hormonal, immunologic, or anything else.
Again, I was not arguing this point.
I don’t believe that any part of the fraternal birth order effect suggests a genetic cause for homosexuality. Whether hormonal or immunologic in nature it suggests that there is an error in utero as a result of the mother being exposed to a male fetus on more than one occasion. For instance, if homosexuality is caused by an immunological response to male antigens how can you possibly call this genetic. Sure, there are genes that code for an immune response to any foreign protein but this is a far cry from saying that there is a genetic cause for homosexuality. Think along the lines of Rh factor incompatibility.
As I pointed out earlier I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. I was pointing out that there is no compelling evidence of a genetic origin. I am not anti-homosexual and I don’t believe that having a differing opinion of what causes homosexuality makes someone anti-homosexual. If you wish to debate there is no reason to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to deny anyone civil rights, hates “fags” or assumes “you’ll burn in a lake of fire for all eternity!”
Merely saying that you didn’t mean it that way isn’t material. If you intentionally use a word which has several meanings in a context that would imply one meaning when you mean a different one, that is intentional deception. Hence why I rightly corrected you. If you want to talk about science, and about lay-opinions and choose to mix your terms it shows that you’re either intentionally deceptive, or not yet able to handle the conversation what with all the big words and all. If you can’t behave yourself at the adult table, then at least have the common courtesy to listen and learn before bastardizing the conversation.
And to not recognize this is a conversation about civil rights (since this is THE civil rights question of our time) is, um, not exactly cutting in your favor that the adults should let you sit down and eat with them. Now, wash your hands, sit there and listen and learn something before opening your mouth and revealing how utterly vacant you are on the subject.
Here’s a protip: your belief, my belief, his belief, her belief, none of these are relevant in any science. Science is about belief; that’s religion where just thinking any old stupid thing is good enough. Science requires quite a bit more.
What part of my words: "a group [crypto-anti-homosexual-rights activists] *** into which I do not place you…*** leads you to your stated conclusion: “… since I disagree with you I must be a crypto-anti-homosexual-rights activist…”?
In any case, I will not dispute the rest of your post, since it’s obvious that we both misunderstood the other and those misunderstandings have been resolved adequately there.
Huh? It seems to me that, as not_alice mistakenly did earlier, you’re addressing the wrong poster with your remarks. Are you sure you didn’t mean to address yorick73’s post instead? After all, it was yorick73 who claimed he didn’t realize the thread was a “conversation about civil rights”, not I, just as it was yorick73 who wrote the rest of the words that you very much seem to taking issue with.
Because otherwise, I have no idea why you’re disputing my post that you quoted in your reply…
The genes in question being the mother’s, not the son’s. It’s genetic in this scenario, but at one remove.
And, we don’t know if it’s a “error” or not; homosexuality is suspiciously common for an error. When some behavior pops up so often, among so many separate species, that looks like a successful biological strategy of some kind to me, not a mistake.
I’m beginning to wonder if it’s a bug or something. In another board, some of my words were literally changed upon posting. For instance, reversible morphed into “reversal” despite the three times I edited it back to reversible. I am extremely confident that I hit quote to Yorick. That notwithstanding, the evidence indicates that I did otherwise. I am glad you pointed this out as my comments were not towards you at all. They were towards Yorick; please accept my apologies for that.
crosses fingers
Thank you for your apology, which I very gladly accept…
Great! Thank you, Der Trihs, for backing me up with your first sentence, as well as for putting what I was trying to say much more succinctly that I apparently could manage…
I don’t think it is all that far fetched to assume you that you were implying I have some motive (anti-homosexual) for disagreeing with you. That was quite a detailed description of a group that you gave! Maybe I’m wrong but it did not seem that you were suggesting that I was merely using words that a crypto-anti-homosexual-rights activist might use without actually being one myself.
Of course I understand that we are talking about the mother’s genes. This still does not suggest that it is genetic unless you want to really stretch the term. In fact, I think this stretches the term “genetic” to include everything about a person…every behavior, preference, etc could, using this terminology, be considered “genetic”.
Think about the fraternal birth order effect…something is happening with each successive male birth. This suggests normal pregnancies for the first x number of male births. But, much like Rh factor incompatibility, the mother may respond to the presence of some “male” antigen by mounting an immune response to later male fetuses. While this is certainly caused by the mother’s genes for producing antibodies and mounting an immume response it suggests an error in blocking the fetus from the maternal immune system in some way.
Alternatively, if there is a hormonal difference that occurs after a number of male pregnancies, this would also suggest that there is some kind of breakdown of the “normal” condition with each successive male birth…an error of some sort.
I will agree with you that the high number suggests a successful strategy of some sort. But you know as well as I that this means nothing. It obviously is not a trait that is selected against but it could be selection neutral or, as I stated above, a trade-off of some kind.
Just for the record I did NOT say that the thread is not about civil rights. I was not referring to the collective WE in my sentence. The debate that WE (you and I) are/were having is about science and nothing more. I was not trying to engage you on any civil rights aspect of the debate.
Isn’t any conversation dealing in genes definitionally dealing with genetics?