I appreciate Bailey reminding everyone of this important aspect of scientific research:
"Most scientists regard a central, if not defining, characteristic of the scientific method to be what Karl Popper called “the principle of falsifiability”: For a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable —you can’t just show me observations that…
I appreciate Bailey reminding everyone of this important aspect of scientific research:
"Most scientists regard a central, if not defining, characteristic of the scientific method to be what Karl Popper called “the principle of falsifiability”: For a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable —you can’t just show me observations that confirm it, but also those that might show the theory to be wrong, false. If you can twist any result of your research into a confirmation of your hypothesis, you aren’t thinking scientifically. For that reason, many of Sigmund Freud’s notions were unfalsifiable."
I have been deeply frustrated by the general failure to adhere to this principle, among those advocates who claim:
• sexual orientation is an innate immutable trait which implies that
• changing sexual orientation is impossible.
These claims are falsifiable in principle. Even a single counter-example should be enough to cause people to question these claims. I’m personally acquainted with many individuals who once fully embraced an LGBT identity and who no longer do. Data on identity-behavior discordance suggests there are many more counter-examples. But the committed activists consistently dismiss these data in one of two ways. Either:
• “You weren’t really gay in the first place.” (Which raises the question of how much pro-gay activism and same sex sexual activity is sufficient to prove a person is “really gay.”)
• “You will surely revert to your true self, meaning your ‘gay’ identity.” (Which raises the question of how long a person has to be living in a different manner, perhaps even in a marriage to an opposite sex partner to prove his “real identity.”)
In other words, people who talk this way are not being scientific: they are skating away from the implications of the evidence.
I appreciate Bailey reminding everyone of this important aspect of scientific research:
"Most scientists regard a central, if not defining, characteristic of the scientific method to be what Karl Popper called “the principle of falsifiability”: For a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable —you can’t just show me observations that confirm it, but also those that might show the theory to be wrong, false. If you can twist any result of your research into a confirmation of your hypothesis, you aren’t thinking scientifically. For that reason, many of Sigmund Freud’s notions were unfalsifiable."
I have been deeply frustrated by the general failure to adhere to this principle, among those advocates who claim:
• sexual orientation is an innate immutable trait which implies that
• changing sexual orientation is impossible.
These claims are falsifiable in principle. Even a single counter-example should be enough to cause people to question these claims. I’m personally acquainted with many individuals who once fully embraced an LGBT identity and who no longer do. Data on identity-behavior discordance suggests there are many more counter-examples. But the committed activists consistently dismiss these data in one of two ways. Either:
• “You weren’t really gay in the first place.” (Which raises the question of how much pro-gay activism and same sex sexual activity is sufficient to prove a person is “really gay.”)
• “You will surely revert to your true self, meaning your ‘gay’ identity.” (Which raises the question of how long a person has to be living in a different manner, perhaps even in a marriage to an opposite sex partner to prove his “real identity.”)
In other words, people who talk this way are not being scientific: they are skating away from the implications of the evidence.