LGBTitp - Part Seven

[Drolyt]

Not necessarily true. It depends on the strengths of the selection pressure. Look at the work with domesticating foxes. You have major effects in just twenty generations. It seems that most selection pressures in natures are weak.

True, I am aware of those experiments, and they are far from the only example. Pretty much everything you eat for food has been selected for this way, for example the entire breed of Angus cows. There are limited examples where this might apply to natural selection (as opposed to humans speeding things up), for a naive example if a major volcanic eruption were to significantly change the atmosphere we would see natural selection working within the generation. This is however the exception that proves the rule, normally there is nothing so dramatic deciding which individuals live and die and natural selection works over a long grueling process of trial and error that takes hundreds of thousands of years.

In response to this thread, I completely support it. In response to the current discussion, the rate at which natural selection takes place fluctuates depending on the environment in which the organism lives.

Yes, but without extremely dramatic changes like my example above it still takes extraordinary amounts of time. As to my other argument, it can be boiled down to "our environment slows down natural selection considerably".

[Murdim]

You are painting "science" with an extremely broard brush, there. Which science? What scientists?

The social science and scientists that we most often get to hear about in the media, sadly. And by extension, Joe Average's stance on what he considers the scientific truth. The research on the causes of homosexuality, the reactions it provokes, and the way everyone nitpicks their favorite explanation according to their bias is a particularly striking exemple of this.


Also, this discussion is becoming dangerously aggressive, even by my standards... not to mention completely disjointed.


EDIT : I... can't agree more with Ostien's last message. The DSM in particular has amply proven that he's to be used as a guideline at best.

[Lix Lorn]

Bull. Einstein hypothesized in his head yes, but everything he did was tested by experiment. Relativity came about because the experiments of the time disagreed with previous theories (namely the speed of light appeared to be the same regardless of the speed and position of the observer, which in Newtonian mechanics is frankly Lovecraftian). His Nobel Prize was in fact for the Photoelectric Effect, work he did almost entirely in the lab as opposed to theorizing.

Well, I was referring to (At the time) untestable things like relativity.

[Drolyt]

Well, I was referring to (At the time) untestable things like relativity.

I'm sorry, but what? Relativity was completely testable, Einstein and others did numerous tests that supported relativity. The most obvious off the top of my head is the test of the speed of light, which was proved to be independent not only of the speed and position of the observer but independent of the rotation of the Earth. Relativity is a direct consequence of this. Simply put if the speed of light appears to be the same to you no matter how fast you are going the only explanation is that the faster you are going the slower time moves for you.

[Asta Kask]

The precession of Mercury's orbit is a famous example of a retrodiction done by General Relativity.

[Ostien]

The social science and scientists that we most often get to hear about in the media, sadly. And by extension, Joe Average's stance on what he considers the scientific truth. The research on the causes of homosexuality, the reactions it provokes, and the way everyone nitpicks their favorite explanation according to their bias is a particularly striking exemple of this.

Well this is definitely a problem, popular scientific reports that get dragged out in the media and distorted beyond all recognition. Such as the research done on digit ration (the ratio of your digits being indicative of sexual orientation). The top researchers there are quoted as clarifying that while there is a strong correlation it falls short of any sort of conclusion on the cause of homosexuality or difference between sexes, which it is often used to defend. One of them is quoted as saying "There is more difference between a Pole and a Finn then between a man and a woman." (that being a Polish person and a Finnish person). But the sound-byte conclusion is what gets played and that is sad.

However, it is not that which I am taking issue with (though it is a problem but a problem of misinformation by the media) but the actual research in disciplines like psychology (my Dr. Zucker example). I know I keep bringing up psychology and psychiatry but those are good examples of a field that studies human subjects and have the highest potential for abuse often as a result of misusing science for normative gain. As for sociology, I like sociology in fact and consider many sociologists as great influences. Sociology simply has much less of a real impact on the general population then psychology does. Sociology tends to be much more descriptive with its conclusions then proscriptive as psychology and psychiatry tends to be. The problem arises when science and philosophy are placed on opposite sides (that was the comment that got me posting in the first place a few pages ago). That in order to be scientific you cannot be philosophical and vice versa, this attitude would greatly devalue fascinating sociological research (it's not scientific enough, when that should not be the concern) and has imo negatively impacted psychology.

Also, this discussion is becoming dangerously aggressive, even by my standards... not to mention completely disjointed.

I'm not sure it is being aggressive, but definitely a bit disjointed due to poor wording and interpretation (much of which I am guilty of).

[Serpentine]

Natural selection does not work in a single generation. It takes extraordinary amounts of time for even minor changes to become dominant. Yes a mutation can happen in one generation, but at that point it has only affected a single individual in the population. Even if that mutation goes on to become common, perhaps within a few generations, that doesn't necessarily mean natural selection is at work, the mutation may simply have been irrelevant, like several of the vestigial organs we have.

Natural selection by definition does effect single generations. Yes, evolution does take time, but even a few hundred years is plenty of time for major - or at least significant - changes, well within our original 10,000-odd years.
Also, natural selection isn't the only driving force of evolution: there's also random selection and genetic drift. The former can work very quickly, and the latter very slowly but still significantly.

First off, you've quoted Wikipedia in a serious scientific discussion and you don't think you can take me seriously? I have never claimed that there wasn't a methodology to science, but what is commonly called "the scientific method" was invented by high school textbooks as a means of dumbing down science. I assumed you were using the naive secondary school definition (hypothesis, develop experiment, test) because otherwise your statement was nonsensical, anyone doing science is following the scientific method by definition, otherwise it isn't science.

Yes, I did. It is a useful starting-point for any discussion, generally well referenced, and much easier than trying to link a book. Considering the fact that the scientific method underpins the entirety of modern science, it's quite difficult to find a difinitive souce outside of, yes, high school textbooks, that simply states "this is scientific method and it is important to science because of this". Thus, I linked Wikipedia, because it is a useful collection of these facts. And yes, I find it much easier to take seriously than flat-out statements that "The scientific method is an invention of secondary school textbooks".
Regarding the rest, no, I was using the actual definition of scientific method. The fact remains that, although the ideal of the method does involve total objectivity, replicability, controlled conditions and the like, in practice anything "less pure" than chemistry and physics will very often fall short of this ideal. That doesn't mean that any area in which is it literally impossible to meet these ideals is not Science. What matters is that they strive for it, and realistically get reasonably close and try to get closer all the time. Where the line of "reasonably" ends is subject to debate.

Yes, but you still need to be able to test your hypothesis. Any test that has the simple features that it is replicable and can easily prove you wrong will work.

Not sure whether you're acknowledging this here, but just in case, "observation of a phenomena", so long as it can also be viewed by others, counts as a "test".

Ostien: I don't disagree with anything you said in your response to me (and if that twit is gaining acceptance, that is very worrying). But I still disagree with your incredibly general and, in my opinion, almost entirely unwarranted judgement of the entire field of science. Yes, obviously the area of gender, homosexuality and sex disphoria is deeply flawed, but that is no reason to disparage science as a whole - much of which is even actively supporting the very fields you take umbrage with. Basically, science covers far more than just LGBT issues, and it's not fair to judge it on that.

[Jacklu]

I hate being the party pooper....

Well, I haven't really been keeping up with the thread to date... but I received a private message from somebody saying that they had wanted to post here and felt too intimidated by the tone and combativeness of the discussions going on. To quote the OP:

"This is a thread where we Playgrounders, and LGBTitp in particular, gather to discuss, share our experiences, give general advice and support one another in such matters as arise relating to, well, the world beyond heteronormaitivity"

Anyways, carry on and just try to keep in mind that the primary goal of the thread is to provide a safe, welcoming place for people in need of help or advice or support to post. Sorry for the PSA.

[Ostien]

Serp, where was I disparaging science? I believe at several points I have said that science is great for many things but science and human subjects is a cause for concen. Trying to categorizes human beings into groups often leads to oppression whether it is by race, sex or culture. Science needs to be more sensitive to those effects is what I am saying. Also the matter is that I don't have a problem with science, I have a problem with it being privileged in debate and set as opposed to philosophy(which is bull). This has been the crux of the issue for me for these past few pages. For something to be useful it does not have to present itself as a science. For example, I have said before many in psychology don't want to be considered a science and tries to distance itself from the scientific rhetoric in the poorly written DSM. My issue is that things like sociology don't have to be a science to be informative and useful. Pierre Bourdieu is a good example for sociology. This was really what got me into this discussion, the comment that implied sociology cleaving itself from philosophy was a positive goal, disparaging philosophy.

You are distorting my position. Distorting it a lot in fact. You are painting me as some anti-science neo-luddite (odd considering I'm a big proponent of transhumanism, I like the idea of designer evolution). Science is a net positive but it has flaws when at the level of society that cannot be ignored. Why is this such a wrong position to take? Why can't I argue that when science takes a human subject it has to be aware of social constructs that may skew the data and also recognize social conditions that may have a factor on characteristics thought to be inherent? That just seems like proper scientific rigor. We may disagree on some points. I do not agree that science and observation can show us a true social reality. This is because human beings have a hand in constructing that social reality. This makes me focus less on general social trends discovered by science among humans because of the exceptions that get left out that are not less important just because they are not normative. I focus more on the anomalies then the trends. This is what I focus my attention to, and you focus it elsewhere. This is fine and I recognize we need both. I just don't think we get enough of both.

Seriously I'm not anti science and am confused as to where you got that from. I have concerns with science and human subjects and have a shift in focus on what I believe is important, which is individual realities not dominated by a broader social norm. As for me those norms can easily be a tool of oppression.

Also Zucker is not "gaining acceptance," he's pretty much representative of the old guard.

EDIT: @Jacklu, sorry for my part in the combativeness of the tone of the debate, I can get rather sharp with things I care deeply about, which I'm sure everyone can understand. This latest post of mine really just is intended to clarify my position that I think has been misunderstood, I do not wish to continue to make this a hostile environment with my tendency for sarcastic and abrasive comments that get blown up.

[Drolyt]

Obviously the "what is science" discussion isn't getting anywhere, I could go on about what I disagree with in Serpentine's last post but then I'm just hijacking the thread. If anyone wants to continue that discussion pm me or start a new thread. Drolyt out.
Edit: I will respond to one part of Serp's post though:

Not sure whether you're acknowledging this here, but just in case, "observation of a phenomena", so long as it can also be viewed by others, counts as a "test".

Of course, so long as the observation is replicable and you take measures to ensure that factors outside what you are studying aren't influencing the result.

[Coidzor]

New topic for the science, probably.

[Serpentine]

Ostien: Looks like it's just one particular line of yours I disagreed with.

Of course, so long as the observation is replicable and you take measures to ensure that factors outside what you are studying aren't influencing the result.

And you're going to do that in the middle of an African savannah, how? Observing animals in the wild is an example of a valid, replicable observation, and is probably the most common source of evidence in biology, yet almost impossible to control in any meaningful way.

Person PMing Jacklu: Aww. It would've broken up the discussion nicely, too. I think we were pretty much just killing time 'til a real poster came in, anyway. C'mon.

[enigmatime]

I'm sorry, but what? Relativity was completely testable, Einstein and others did numerous tests that supported relativity. The most obvious off the top of my head is the test of the speed of light, which was proved to be independent not only of the speed and position of the observer but independent of the rotation of the Earth. Relativity is a direct consequence of this. Simply put if the speed of light appears to be the same to you no matter how fast you are going the only explanation is that the faster you are going the slower time moves for you.

Lix Lorn may have been referring to Special Relativity (I haven't studied that for some time, so don't ask me to explain it). I agree with Jacklu, thread as been derailed and is becoming agressive. If it it escalates to a point where it gets locked, I be sad to see such a noble thread go.

[Drolyt]

And you're going to do that in the middle of an African savannah, how? Observing animals in the wild is an example of a valid, replicable observation, and is probably the most common source of evidence in biology, yet almost impossible to control in any meaningful way.

You misunderstand me. It doesn't have to be a perfectly controlled experiment (that is impossible). What I said doesn't even apply in your example, but as an example along your line of thought say you were looking for evidence of a disease in a certain animal population. You would have to be careful if your only evidence was symptoms in the local population because those symptoms could be caused by something else. You would have to take measures to ensure you aren't mistaking the symptoms of one thing for the symptoms of what you are looking for.

Lix Lorn may have been referring to Special Relativity (I haven't studied that for some time, so don't ask me to explain it). I agree with Jacklu, thread as been derailed and is becoming agressive. If it it escalates to a point where it gets locked, I be sad to see such a noble thread go.

I don't need Special Relativity explained, I understand it well enough. At any rate you are right, this is really off topic.

[Ostien]

if your only evidence was symptoms in the local population because those symptoms could be caused by something else. You would have to take measures to ensure you aren't mistaking the symptoms of one thing for the symptoms of what you are looking for.

Emphasis mine. This is basically analogous to what I was saying on studying human beings for social trends across race, gender, sex, culture etc. You have to be sure the behavior you are observing is not culturally specific or even if it is cross cultures not via some social construct across all cultures (such as the subjugation of women). I tend to think this is difficult to do scientifically because of the subjectivity of social constructs and how the same social construct or conditions may have different outcomes or just different rationalities that are important to understand. Also question the use of these categories as they often create a norm that oppresses non normative people. This is a concern and should not be overlooked but it also does not mean we should not be curious and investigate. Just my thoughts feel free to disagree but I want to make sure my actual position is understood. Okay I'll shaddap now

Edit: okay so it shows as italicized all the quote of that not just the portion I wanted. I just cut down the quoted portion.

[Thufir]

Person PMing Jacklu: Aww. It would've broken up the discussion nicely, too. I think we were pretty much just killing time 'til a real poster came in, anyway. C'mon.

I remember the days when we did that by Collin flirting with everyone male. Those were good days.

[Coidzor]

So, any interesting events coming up this summer for anyone?

[albis]

@ Coizdor: I'll visit Amsterdam and Bruxelles with some friends, next month... does that count as an event? XD

[The Rose Dragon]

I remember the days when we did that by Collin flirting with everyone male. Those were good days.

What happened to Collin anyway?

[Coidzor]

Albis: Hmm, well, it sounds like fun at least. I was more wondering if summer was pride parade season or any kind of festivals that would be pertinent in order to get us off the DWARVEN SCIENCE! discussion.

What happened to Collin anyway?

Eaten by a grue.

[Danne]

My town doesn't really have Pride Parades -- it's a bit of a moot point, because we're a very liberal state and gay marriage is legal here. I wish we did, though, because I'd totally go to one. My high school did Day of Silences, but that's about it.

I'm working at summer camp again. Two of my coworkers are siblings, and they must come from a family of very pretty people, 'cuz they're both gorgeous. Of course, she's sixteen and he's my boss, so there's not much to go with there, but I'm enjoying the view. Feel like a perv, though, lol.

Edit: @person who PMed Jacklu: Please post?

[albis]

Albis: Hmm, well, it sounds like fun at least. I was more wondering if summer was pride parade season or any kind of festivals that would be pertinent in order to get us off the DWARVEN SCIENCE! discussion.

Oh, that! There was one in my city last Saturday, but I wasn't able to go because of the many things I had to study...
but people who went told me it was fun, and there were lots of people and music... I've been glad to hear it was a generically happy thing, without any incidents of sorts =)

[Drolyt]

So, any interesting events coming up this summer for anyone?

I went to a beach that turned out to be the local gay beach (apparently the area is populated by rich homosexuals and I was the only person in the group unaware of this), but nothing interesting came of it. The sunset looked pretty cool. I'm unaware of any gay pride parades around here but I imagine there must be some.

[blackfox]

What happened to Collin anyway?

Collin's still alive. There's family/school/college crap going on. He'll be back, he always is.

[Coidzor]

Collin's still alive. There's family/school/college crap going on. He'll be back, he always is.

Exactly. A grue. Which he'll triumphantly burst out of the twisted nethers of.

[enigmatime]

How do I find out if there are pride parades in my area?

[golentan]

How do I find out if there are pride parades in my area?

Generally they'll have an events page or a newspaper ad or something. A good way to find out is to google "Cityname Pride."

I'm actually trying to decide if I should go to a pride event tomorrow.

[Ostien]

Chicago has a huge Pride Parade. In fact June is declared pride month, so there are various events that go on all month and the last Sunday of the month is always the pride parade. But since this was all last month kinda does not help anyone much. But it is every year so if anyone is in the area or can get to Chicago I'd highly recommend it.

This year was a blast for me, I actually got to march in the parade. Exhausting but fun.

[Serpentine]

Find your local LGBT group and ask them?

[Coidzor]

Is Lady Gaga good bait for finding them? Or is that just a rumor?