Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:35:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1116 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
> Kirby Warden wrote:
> >
> > This seems like as good a place as any to jump in.
> >
> > The research i've done shows that a gay scientist found evidence of a gay
> > gene, but no one has been able to duplicate his results. In scientific
> > research, that is a very serious thing. It may have been better if he had
> > quietly coerced other scientists to duplicate his tests, then their failures
> > would not have overshadowed his possibly biased results.
>
> Quietly coercing other scientists to duplicate research sounds like a
> more serious issue then a lack of repetability. I'm not sure if I'm
> parsing your meaning of your last sentence correctly but putting out an
> idea and seeing if others get the same results is part of science.
> There are countless examples of this in the literature. I'm reading
> your last sentence as something more sinister- only publishing if others
> get the same pattern. That's bad science practice.
>
> Unless you mean that he should have said "Hmm, I found a 'gay-gene' and
> this seems like a big deal and the media is going to latch onto this.
> Maybe I should have ask some colleages to try the same procedure to see
> if my results are just a fluke?" I would see this as good practice. Of
> course, in the uber-competive nature of the biomedical fields, you won't
> find this happening much.
Your second example is what I was aiming for.
> > Proving that the gay gene exists is a very serious matter. If it does
> > exist, then over 4,000 yrs. of religious doctrine must be either changed or
> > simply buried. Also, gay individuals could then demand special treatment
> > similiar to other racial minorities, much of which would come out of
> > taxpayers wallets. There are many other possible negatives that can and
> > would occure with the "official" acknowledgement of yet another racial
> > minority/special interest group. Personally, I think we have enough
> > problems trying to appease everyone already.
>
> So anyone with 'rare' genes should be allowed to be a special
> interest... ... I think I just decided that the media should be banned
> from reporting on genes. (kidding in a frustrated manner )
>
> I'm taking issue with the idea of a gay gene. It can't be a
> single-locus gene(if it is genetically based)- how would that gene be
> maintained in the population?
>
> > The more thought I put into this matter, the more it feels like a political
> > movement.
>
> now you're thinking...
>
> -chris
Not sure if you're actually agreeing with me or not, but thanks for not
attacking me.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Quietly coercing other scientists to duplicate research sounds like a more serious issue then a lack of repetability. I'm not sure if I'm parsing your meaning of your last sentence correctly but putting out an idea and seeing if others get the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
