Why would one have to justify opinion for sometihng that is so variable in nature, that makes little sense to me.
I can produce 20 studies either way on almost any principle in any social science.
The reason why is obvious...
This can't be done in physics or chemistry because they are hard sciences which are quantifiable and the variables are usually discreet.
This is not true in social sciences, hence why economist are often wrong when trying to predict trends.
You're absolutely correct that social sciences are subjective, not hard sciences, but even in physics there are some principles that are still theories, like the Big Bang, which I happen to believe, but we really don't know for sure.
I would say though, if you can produce just one study that would substantiate your opinion, this would satisfy sagascend's request and we can cool down some of the tensions that might have been created.
Posted: Wed 04 Apr 2007 22:09 Post subject: Re: Justification of Opinion
fwsweet wrote:
DChapman wrote:
if you can produce just one study that would substantiate your opinion, this would satisfy sagascend's request
That, or retract the claim, making clear that it was an unsubstantiated opinion and not a statement of fact.
The latter would be preferable, especially since I am not disputing the claim that many men (and women) believe that men cannot be raped or boys abused by female adults. I object strongly to the characterization that a minor child cannot be or has not been abused by an adult, especially since there is compelling evidence that such abuse has taken place. State your opinions all you like but do not state them as facts as if your gender provides some sort of unchecked authority. It's a subtle difference in language but an important one nevertheless.
To the comment about "hard" vs. "soft" sciences (which in itself indicates a certain lack of awareness/knowledge of research methodologies because very few researchers in any discipline carry out the type of experiments that have even a prayer of fufilling the stringent criteria for declaring causality or "truth," and many researchers in psychology or economics do conduct experiments while many biologists or geneticists do not), qualitative methodologies are about accurately documenting the experience of a few rather than generalizing to the entire population from which the sample was taken. Qualitative researchers validate only the experiences of their subjects and do not get on the "causation" bandwagon. Therefore, if one states that boys "cannot" be sexually abused by an adult woman, one's argument is instantly invalidated by the presence of one such case of abuse in the population one seeks to generalize to. That's why the burden of "proof" rests with the claimant, and rightly so.
For all intents and purposes, Dragon Horse's unsubstantiated opinion cannot be "proven" or "disproven," so that was not my goal. My goal was to ascertain whether there actually are states that legally allow minors under 17 to have sexual relations with adults. I have to admit I am highly suspicious of that claim and, without evidence, it seems to me Dragon Horse's statements should be disregarded.
So if the links do not tell me which states have these laws, the request for evidence has not been fulfilled. I have no interest in going back and forth about perspectives on abuse with Dragon Horse ad nauseum, but I will insist on a reliable/valid source or sources for the legal statutes that he claims exist.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
