Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Are You FUCKING kidding me?

(I apologize in advance for the profanity-laden rant. But this stuff makes me nuts.)
More from the department of making shit up:


In one of those moments when the NYT decided to provide free advertising to the Heritage Foundation, it prominently features the following from one of our favourite right-wing thinktanks:

Studies Rebut Earlier Report on Pledges of Virginity

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN



Challenging earlier findings, two studies from the Heritage Foundation reported yesterday that young people who took virginity pledges had lower rates of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases and engaged in fewer risky sexual behaviors.


The new findings were based on the same national survey used by earlier studies and conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services. But the authors of the new study used different methods of statistical analysis from those in an earlier one that was widely publicized, making direct comparisons difficult.


Independent experts called the new findings provocative, but criticized the Heritage team's analysis as flawed and lacking the statistical evidence to back its conclusions. The new findings have not been submitted to a journal for publication, an author said. The independent experts who reviewed the study said the findings were unlikely to be published in their present form.


Okay. Say this with me now. Manipulating the data to make it look like the truth is still considered LYING. (And I still believe that bearing false witness is a big no-no. But what do I know? I'm an unethical atheist.)

Now that certain people have decided that science can be interpreted any damn way you please, and thus, there is TOO scientific proof for Intelligent Design, apparently, you can take a survey and change the data just a little tiny bit and get whole different results. Who'd a thunk?

So, even though the original study was published in a vetted journal, and this one is not going to be published in a journal, doesn't make this one any less legitimate, right?

Those studies that came out of Texas that showed higher rates of pregnancy among the kids who'd taken abstinence-only education courses must have been bullshit, no?


The team needs to do "a lot of work" on its paper, said David Landry, a senior research associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York. He said in an interview that it was "a glaring error" to use the result of a statistical test at a 0.10 level of significance when journals generally use a lower and more rigorous level of 0.05.


.10 or .05, what's the big diff? Sheesh.

I figure there's going to be lots of explaining to do soon. See, if these kids are not having sex, how are they going to explain those pregnancies? Hmmm. That virgin birth story worked once before....

5 comments:

aqualung said...

There is something very fishy about junk science being reported on by the NYT. This new "study" is complete crap, would never be accepted in a peer-reviewed journal (having published scientific studies myself), and is of no merit scientifically, although it's political import is certainly obvious. What gives, NYT? I think the paper's ombudsman should be questioned about this very questionable act.

Meteor Blades said...

Abstinence does work in societies where women are stoned or beheaded for sex outside of marriage, but even in Texas they haven't gone that far ... yet.

Andy said...

Mass virgin births? That could lead to some interesting battles about who really is the Second Coming...

Some Guy said...

I bet Karl Rove is a virgin.

lightly-blended said...

Energizing blog. It blew me away and I loved your
site. when I have the time to surf the net, i try
finding blogs as good as your site.
Hey why don't you peep my cash advance cincinnati blog site.