|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 24 2013 07:24 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:27 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:[quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authorityThought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts. So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument. All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling. You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling. You've got burden of proof backwards. You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim. You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided. You haven't provided the source material. I guess peer reviewed means making shit up without evidence. Huh, didn't know that. If I tell you about pizzas at Papa John's, I haven't provided you with pizzas. Similarly, naming studies behind paywalls is not providing them. telling me papa johns has pizzas and if I'm willing to buy them I can get them is exactly what a paywall is... The reason I'm willing to pay money for a papa johns pizza is because I have faith that the message given to me that papa johns has pizza is true. Now, papa johns informs me by word of mouth and advertisements. Scientific research does it by peer reviews. If I'm willing to get pizza, I pay for it. If I'm willing to get the entire research I pay for it. What is there to not understand? There is a peer reviewed paper that proves, beyond a doubt, that more guns = better, unilaterally. I will give you the name of the paper, the authors, and the website where you can order it. Unfortunately, it costs one million dollars to get a copy of it. However, you are just going to have to accept that I have provided proof of this claim unless you are willing to go through this source material I provided. Obviously the difference between what really happened (from what I've gleamed) and my extreme example is that the cost of getting the papers that have actually been pointed to in this thread are not exorbitant. On the other hand, providing the name/location of a paper that you need to pay for in order to see is not really presenting evidence in a useful way. There's nothing wrong with offering such information, but it isn't really a good response when someone is asking for evidence pertinent to the current discussion (and that of course goes for each side of the debate). edit: btw the papa john's example was pretty clear... I'm not sure why you were acting like it was confused somehow
I understood the intent of his example, and I was just showing that (as an example) it was very unsatisfactory since the example is actually the opposite of what he was trying to say.
When someone tells me that there is pizza/research at _____ place, the fact that I have to pay for it does not make the pizza/research disappear. The *hope* is that we trust the peer review process of scientific research in order for us to not have to doubt whether or not papa johns is lying about pizza.
This is important because his main proof that the arguments are invalid is because the studies have 2 co-authors he doesn't like as if his dislike of their input somehow contradicts the peer review process.
Now, if he doesn't trust the peer review process, then he will need to see the documents for himself to make sure the data was actually reviewed. If he trusts the peer review process, then he should be okay with the fact that a bunch of experts already pored over the studies and found them to be sound. However, he wasn't saying he doesn't trust peer review, he's saying he doesn't like 2 co-authors of a big study with a bunch of other authors in it.
|
On May 24 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:27 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:On May 24 2013 03:22 FallDownMarigold wrote: [quote]
It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authorityThought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts. So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument. All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling. You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling. You've got burden of proof backwards. You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim. You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided. You haven't provided the source material. I guess peer reviewed means making shit up without evidence. Huh, didn't know that. If I tell you about pizzas at Papa John's, I haven't provided you with pizzas. Similarly, naming studies behind paywalls is not providing them. telling me papa johns has pizzas and if I'm willing to buy them I can get them is exactly what a paywall is... The reason I'm willing to pay money for a papa johns pizza is because I have faith that the message given to me that papa johns has pizza is true. Now, papa johns informs me by word of mouth and advertisements. Scientific research does it by peer reviews. If I'm willing to get pizza, I pay for it. If I'm willing to get the entire research I pay for it. What is there to not understand?
It's your job to provide information to back up your own argument, not my job to go out and find it or pay for it. If you have data to share, then share it. Otherwise, you're just claiming it's out there without any relevant proof for this discussion.
|
On May 24 2013 08:00 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:27 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:[quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authorityThought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts. So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument. All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling. You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling. You've got burden of proof backwards. You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim. You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided. You haven't provided the source material. I guess peer reviewed means making shit up without evidence. Huh, didn't know that. If I tell you about pizzas at Papa John's, I haven't provided you with pizzas. Similarly, naming studies behind paywalls is not providing them. telling me papa johns has pizzas and if I'm willing to buy them I can get them is exactly what a paywall is... The reason I'm willing to pay money for a papa johns pizza is because I have faith that the message given to me that papa johns has pizza is true. Now, papa johns informs me by word of mouth and advertisements. Scientific research does it by peer reviews. If I'm willing to get pizza, I pay for it. If I'm willing to get the entire research I pay for it. What is there to not understand? It's your job to provide information to back up your own argument, not my job to go out and find it or pay for it. If you have data to share, then share it. Otherwise, you're just claiming it's out there without any relevant proof for this discussion.
You mean the 22 peer reviewed articles he linked you?
|
On May 24 2013 08:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 08:00 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:27 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote: [quote]
All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling. You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling. You've got burden of proof backwards. You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim. You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided. You haven't provided the source material. I guess peer reviewed means making shit up without evidence. Huh, didn't know that. If I tell you about pizzas at Papa John's, I haven't provided you with pizzas. Similarly, naming studies behind paywalls is not providing them. telling me papa johns has pizzas and if I'm willing to buy them I can get them is exactly what a paywall is... The reason I'm willing to pay money for a papa johns pizza is because I have faith that the message given to me that papa johns has pizza is true. Now, papa johns informs me by word of mouth and advertisements. Scientific research does it by peer reviews. If I'm willing to get pizza, I pay for it. If I'm willing to get the entire research I pay for it. What is there to not understand? It's your job to provide information to back up your own argument, not my job to go out and find it or pay for it. If you have data to share, then share it. Otherwise, you're just claiming it's out there without any relevant proof for this discussion. You mean the 22 peer reviewed articles he linked you? Wait...where are the links?
I'm actually interested in reading them...but they're not showing up?
|
@Kim Are you in school at a somewhat large university? If you are, great, you probably have full access to pubmed. Some of these articles are more likely free in any case.
Goto: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
Enter citation information for whichever study that interests you. If you can't get them, then you may remain a skeptic, but you may not dismiss them on methodological grounds or something which would require you to actually read the paper. And in the event you do get access and think you have a legitimate complaint, then your task is to see if this complaint is verified/corroborates by equally authoritative sources. In practice when problematic studies are published you will find peer reviewed responses to the papers, often in the same journal in which they first appeared.
|
On May 24 2013 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 07:24 micronesia wrote:On May 24 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:27 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote: [quote]
All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling. You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling. You've got burden of proof backwards. You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim. You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided. You haven't provided the source material. I guess peer reviewed means making shit up without evidence. Huh, didn't know that. If I tell you about pizzas at Papa John's, I haven't provided you with pizzas. Similarly, naming studies behind paywalls is not providing them. telling me papa johns has pizzas and if I'm willing to buy them I can get them is exactly what a paywall is... The reason I'm willing to pay money for a papa johns pizza is because I have faith that the message given to me that papa johns has pizza is true. Now, papa johns informs me by word of mouth and advertisements. Scientific research does it by peer reviews. If I'm willing to get pizza, I pay for it. If I'm willing to get the entire research I pay for it. What is there to not understand? There is a peer reviewed paper that proves, beyond a doubt, that more guns = better, unilaterally. I will give you the name of the paper, the authors, and the website where you can order it. Unfortunately, it costs one million dollars to get a copy of it. However, you are just going to have to accept that I have provided proof of this claim unless you are willing to go through this source material I provided. Obviously the difference between what really happened (from what I've gleamed) and my extreme example is that the cost of getting the papers that have actually been pointed to in this thread are not exorbitant. On the other hand, providing the name/location of a paper that you need to pay for in order to see is not really presenting evidence in a useful way. There's nothing wrong with offering such information, but it isn't really a good response when someone is asking for evidence pertinent to the current discussion (and that of course goes for each side of the debate). edit: btw the papa john's example was pretty clear... I'm not sure why you were acting like it was confused somehow I understood the intent of his example, and I was just showing that (as an example) it was very unsatisfactory since the example is actually the opposite of what he was trying to say. When someone tells me that there is pizza/research at _____ place, the fact that I have to pay for it does not make the pizza/research disappear. The *hope* is that we trust the peer review process of scientific research in order for us to not have to doubt whether or not papa johns is lying about pizza. This is important because his main proof that the arguments are invalid is because the studies have 2 co-authors he doesn't like as if his dislike of their input somehow contradicts the peer review process. Now, if he doesn't trust the peer review process, then he will need to see the documents for himself to make sure the data was actually reviewed. If he trusts the peer review process, then he should be okay with the fact that a bunch of experts already pored over the studies and found them to be sound. However, he wasn't saying he doesn't trust peer review, he's saying he doesn't like 2 co-authors of a big study with a bunch of other authors in it.
The peer review process isn't infallible and it's not unusual for two seperate peer reviewed studies to conflict with each other or invalidate an earlier peer reviewed experiment. And it's not unusual for researchers to shop around for the best reviews or submit work to reviewers who are sympathetic to the author's hypothesis (confirmation bias).
I think what he is pointing out is that the 20 sources you cited are from only 2 authors. And since the details of the research isn't accessible unless paid for, he cannot reliably accept them at face value. Papa John's may very well have pizzas. And the claims you make about those pizzas might be the unvarnished truth. But unless I can verify your claim about the pizzas, bringing them up in a pizza discussion is really pointless. He can pay to get the research papers and his unwillingess to do so doesn't make the papers right or wrong. But who is really willing to pay for 20 research papers just to settle an argument on a gaming forum?
|
They are not from only 2 authors. Moreover they are published in a wide number of journals. Your point about infallibility would be stronger if it were only 1 paper in 1 journal.
He can remain a skeptic and ignore them, but he absolutely cannot attempt to dismiss them on grounds of methodology flaws, which is exactly what he tried to do.
|
On May 24 2013 08:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 08:00 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:27 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote: [quote]
All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling. You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling. You've got burden of proof backwards. You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim. You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided. You haven't provided the source material. I guess peer reviewed means making shit up without evidence. Huh, didn't know that. If I tell you about pizzas at Papa John's, I haven't provided you with pizzas. Similarly, naming studies behind paywalls is not providing them. telling me papa johns has pizzas and if I'm willing to buy them I can get them is exactly what a paywall is... The reason I'm willing to pay money for a papa johns pizza is because I have faith that the message given to me that papa johns has pizza is true. Now, papa johns informs me by word of mouth and advertisements. Scientific research does it by peer reviews. If I'm willing to get pizza, I pay for it. If I'm willing to get the entire research I pay for it. What is there to not understand? It's your job to provide information to back up your own argument, not my job to go out and find it or pay for it. If you have data to share, then share it. Otherwise, you're just claiming it's out there without any relevant proof for this discussion. You mean the 22 peer reviewed articles he linked you?
I would happily read any actual articles linked for me. In fact, I've been asking for them. However, the most that has been provided have been brief summaries. I've even responded to those summaries while continuing to ask for the actual data, but of course the response has been "lol, you didn't read the articles".
|
On May 24 2013 08:22 Campitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 07:24 micronesia wrote:On May 24 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:27 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote: [quote] You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling. You've got burden of proof backwards. You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim. You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided. You haven't provided the source material. I guess peer reviewed means making shit up without evidence. Huh, didn't know that. If I tell you about pizzas at Papa John's, I haven't provided you with pizzas. Similarly, naming studies behind paywalls is not providing them. telling me papa johns has pizzas and if I'm willing to buy them I can get them is exactly what a paywall is... The reason I'm willing to pay money for a papa johns pizza is because I have faith that the message given to me that papa johns has pizza is true. Now, papa johns informs me by word of mouth and advertisements. Scientific research does it by peer reviews. If I'm willing to get pizza, I pay for it. If I'm willing to get the entire research I pay for it. What is there to not understand? There is a peer reviewed paper that proves, beyond a doubt, that more guns = better, unilaterally. I will give you the name of the paper, the authors, and the website where you can order it. Unfortunately, it costs one million dollars to get a copy of it. However, you are just going to have to accept that I have provided proof of this claim unless you are willing to go through this source material I provided. Obviously the difference between what really happened (from what I've gleamed) and my extreme example is that the cost of getting the papers that have actually been pointed to in this thread are not exorbitant. On the other hand, providing the name/location of a paper that you need to pay for in order to see is not really presenting evidence in a useful way. There's nothing wrong with offering such information, but it isn't really a good response when someone is asking for evidence pertinent to the current discussion (and that of course goes for each side of the debate). edit: btw the papa john's example was pretty clear... I'm not sure why you were acting like it was confused somehow I understood the intent of his example, and I was just showing that (as an example) it was very unsatisfactory since the example is actually the opposite of what he was trying to say. When someone tells me that there is pizza/research at _____ place, the fact that I have to pay for it does not make the pizza/research disappear. The *hope* is that we trust the peer review process of scientific research in order for us to not have to doubt whether or not papa johns is lying about pizza. This is important because his main proof that the arguments are invalid is because the studies have 2 co-authors he doesn't like as if his dislike of their input somehow contradicts the peer review process. Now, if he doesn't trust the peer review process, then he will need to see the documents for himself to make sure the data was actually reviewed. If he trusts the peer review process, then he should be okay with the fact that a bunch of experts already pored over the studies and found them to be sound. However, he wasn't saying he doesn't trust peer review, he's saying he doesn't like 2 co-authors of a big study with a bunch of other authors in it. The peer review process isn't infallible and it's not unusual for two seperate peer reviewed studies to conflict with each other or invalidate an earlier peer reviewed experiment. And it's not unusual for researchers to shop around for the best reviews or submit work to reviewers who are sympathetic to the author's hypothesis (confirmation bias). I think what he is pointing out is that the 20 sources you cited are from only 2 authors. And since the details of the research isn't accessible unless paid for, he cannot reliably accept them at face value. Papa John's may very well have pizzas. And the claims you make about those pizzas might be the unvarnished truth. But unless I can verify your claim about the pizzas, bringing them up in a pizza discussion is really pointless. He can pay to get the research papers and his unwillingess to do so doesn't make the papers right or wrong. But who is really willing to pay for 20 research papers just to settle an argument on a gaming forum?
I didn't cite the articles, someone else did. I'm mostly commenting because usually when someone goes around saying Harvard studies that have been peer reviewed is a crock just because he doesn't like 2 of the multiple authors in the articles, it usually is some guy telling me that evolution isn't real.
|
On May 24 2013 08:25 FallDownMarigold wrote: They are not from only 2 authors. Moreover they are published in a wide number of journals. Your point about infallibility would be stronger if it were only 1 paper in 1 journal.
Matthew Miller is the sole author or a coauthor of 15 out of the 22 articles linked (he is the sole author or primary coauthor of 13 out of those 15). David Hemenway is a coauthor of 13 out of the 22 articles.
Only 3 of those articles are written without Miller or Hemenway as authors/coauthors (articles 16, 17, and 18). Articles 16 and 17 do not address the argument we're having about whether gun control reduces suicide (they discuss suicide prevention training for mental health providers), and article 18 is a literature review.
On May 24 2013 08:25 FallDownMarigold wrote: He can remain a skeptic and ignore them, but he absolutely cannot attempt to dismiss them on grounds of methodology flaws, which is exactly what he tried to do.
Demanding to see the data ≠ ignoring them.
The only studies I criticized on methodological grounds were studies 9 and 10, and those studies summarized their methodology in the linked list of articles and their summaries.
|
On May 24 2013 08:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 08:22 Campitor wrote:On May 24 2013 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 07:24 micronesia wrote:On May 24 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 24 2013 06:27 sunprince wrote:On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote: [quote]
You've got burden of proof backwards.
You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim. You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided. You haven't provided the source material. I guess peer reviewed means making shit up without evidence. Huh, didn't know that. If I tell you about pizzas at Papa John's, I haven't provided you with pizzas. Similarly, naming studies behind paywalls is not providing them. telling me papa johns has pizzas and if I'm willing to buy them I can get them is exactly what a paywall is... The reason I'm willing to pay money for a papa johns pizza is because I have faith that the message given to me that papa johns has pizza is true. Now, papa johns informs me by word of mouth and advertisements. Scientific research does it by peer reviews. If I'm willing to get pizza, I pay for it. If I'm willing to get the entire research I pay for it. What is there to not understand? There is a peer reviewed paper that proves, beyond a doubt, that more guns = better, unilaterally. I will give you the name of the paper, the authors, and the website where you can order it. Unfortunately, it costs one million dollars to get a copy of it. However, you are just going to have to accept that I have provided proof of this claim unless you are willing to go through this source material I provided. Obviously the difference between what really happened (from what I've gleamed) and my extreme example is that the cost of getting the papers that have actually been pointed to in this thread are not exorbitant. On the other hand, providing the name/location of a paper that you need to pay for in order to see is not really presenting evidence in a useful way. There's nothing wrong with offering such information, but it isn't really a good response when someone is asking for evidence pertinent to the current discussion (and that of course goes for each side of the debate). edit: btw the papa john's example was pretty clear... I'm not sure why you were acting like it was confused somehow I understood the intent of his example, and I was just showing that (as an example) it was very unsatisfactory since the example is actually the opposite of what he was trying to say. When someone tells me that there is pizza/research at _____ place, the fact that I have to pay for it does not make the pizza/research disappear. The *hope* is that we trust the peer review process of scientific research in order for us to not have to doubt whether or not papa johns is lying about pizza. This is important because his main proof that the arguments are invalid is because the studies have 2 co-authors he doesn't like as if his dislike of their input somehow contradicts the peer review process. Now, if he doesn't trust the peer review process, then he will need to see the documents for himself to make sure the data was actually reviewed. If he trusts the peer review process, then he should be okay with the fact that a bunch of experts already pored over the studies and found them to be sound. However, he wasn't saying he doesn't trust peer review, he's saying he doesn't like 2 co-authors of a big study with a bunch of other authors in it. The peer review process isn't infallible and it's not unusual for two seperate peer reviewed studies to conflict with each other or invalidate an earlier peer reviewed experiment. And it's not unusual for researchers to shop around for the best reviews or submit work to reviewers who are sympathetic to the author's hypothesis (confirmation bias). I think what he is pointing out is that the 20 sources you cited are from only 2 authors. And since the details of the research isn't accessible unless paid for, he cannot reliably accept them at face value. Papa John's may very well have pizzas. And the claims you make about those pizzas might be the unvarnished truth. But unless I can verify your claim about the pizzas, bringing them up in a pizza discussion is really pointless. He can pay to get the research papers and his unwillingess to do so doesn't make the papers right or wrong. But who is really willing to pay for 20 research papers just to settle an argument on a gaming forum? I didn't cite the articles, someone else did. I'm mostly commenting because usually when someone goes around saying Harvard studies that have been peer reviewed is a crock just because he doesn't like 2 of the multiple authors in the articles, it usually is some guy telling me that evolution isn't real.
While I wouldn't say that a Harvard study is a croc - they can't be accepted at face value even if peer reviewed. The peer review process isn't infallible and conflicts of interests and confirmation bias are common enough that instituions feel obligated to mention it in their peer review guidelines. And it's not unusual for respected scientist to have competing and nasty battles over data and what that data means. Research is like the market place - caveat emptor.
Here are links to articles you might want to read regarding scientific quackery and publishing: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33695/title/Top-Science-Scandals-of-2012/ & http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08f62610-11f6-11df-b6e3-00144feab49a.html#axzz2UAAv3yKd.
It sad that even in science we can't trust what is being said without our own verification. And I imagine in such a hotly contested debate regarding guns that some research chicanery is occurring in the pro and anti gun camps.
|
On May 24 2013 08:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:@Kim Are you in school at a somewhat large university? If you are, great, you probably have full access to pubmed. Some of these articles are more likely free in any case. Goto: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedEnter citation information for whichever study that interests you. If you can't get them, then you may remain a skeptic, but you may not dismiss them on methodological grounds or something which would require you to actually read the paper. And in the event you do get access and think you have a legitimate complaint, then your task is to see if this complaint is verified/corroborates by equally authoritative sources. In practice when problematic studies are published you will find peer reviewed responses to the papers, often in the same journal in which they first appeared. Unless (and I can access similar studies which say much of the same through different databases associated with my college) I don't care?
I never raised any issues with the methodological grounds the arguments were being postulated upon. I take issue with why I should care. The request for the links was solely academic and stemmed out of curiosity, but I'm actually intrigued by this line of reasoning, so fuckit, let's argue!
Fine, I'll concede that gun availability is positively correlated with male suicide. So what? I don't consider public health or safety a legitimate argument in this case, not because I'm unconcerned, but because people who DO consider it a legitimate argument are liars about their priorities and thus, have no rational basis from which to frame their arguments. There are any number of more dangerous activities that could be addressed if public safety was your REAL concern, but it's not. By saying Public Safety is your primary concern, you've automatically relegated yourself to:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
...essentially EATING HEALTHY as your first priority. If it isn't, and your not going to push for legislation which determines peoples eating habits before that which restricts gun availability, safety isn't your actual concern.
Did I just strawman? Probably. But if public health/safety isn't the foundational axiom behind this argument of, "Gun control because positive correlation with suicide, blah, blah, blah." what is? Could it be simply a matter of, *gasp* emotional preference about the sort of society you want to live in?
For clarification, this is not TOTALLY addressed to you. Partially, but rather it's addressed to the aggregate of this suicide argument I've seen so far.
The whole argument reeks of Marxist dialectical methodology.
|
|
On May 24 2013 09:00 Kimaker wrote: There are any number of more dangerous activities that could be addressed if public safety was your REAL concern, but it's not. By saying Public Safety is your primary concern, you've automatically relegated -snip-
This shows your lack of knowledge in public health, which is absolutely fine, since there is no reason you should be an expert on something you don't do. But please hear this: Public health professionals disagree with you here, and I will pull a quote when I have some time to get one that fits nicely. Just because other activities exist that cause more death does not mean that less deadly activities should be ignored. All activities should be addressed on a level commensurate to the attached morbidity and mortality. Other public health concerns ARE being addressed -- why on Earth should every single person in public health aim only at what causes the biggest problem? That does not make any sense from a public health perspective, and hopefully you understand this now.
Currently firearm injury and death research is not funded, at all. Logically it should receive funding in proportion to its associated death and injury relative to other public health concerns. Larger concerns receive larger funding. Fortunately the current administration is going to be resuming funding into firearm death & injury research, which will enable the current body of dedicated, active investigators to expand from ~6 to an acceptable number.
The author who states this is Garen Wintemute, and I will find his exact quote later if I must. In the meantime please read this Nature article: http://www.nature.com/news/firearms-research-the-gun-fighter-1.12864
This is interesting, but what direct relevance does it have to the papers listed on the Harvard School of Public Health's page? Are the papers I provided under the lens of international scrutiny with regard to alleged faulty methodology? I am well aware that some peer reviewed papers have been subject to criticism due to cheating in the research. Until *these* papers are shown to be the result of cheating/dishonesty, there is no reason to assume they're shit just because not every paper is genuine. The vast majority are honest, and those that are dishonest get found out by the peers, and this finding out is inevitable when the paper is under the spotlight due to the importance of its purported claims.
You should've picked the story about the South Korean stem cell researcher who faked claims that he cloned a human. That's a fantastic example of academic dishonesty on a major publication. There is no reason to assume any of the HSPH papers are like that though -- is there? Does the data conflict with other researchers' data on firearms and suicide? Are there concerns raised in response articles from the same journals?
|
+ Show Spoiler +[QUOTE]On May 24 2013 10:32 FallDownMarigold wrote: [QUOTE]On May 24 2013 09:00 Kimaker wrote: There are any number of more dangerous activities that could be addressed if public safety was your REAL concern, but it's not. By saying Public Safety is your primary concern, you've automatically relegated -snip- [/QUOTE]
This shows your lack of knowledge in public health, which is absolutely fine, since there is no reason you should be an expert on something you don't do. But please hear this: Public health professionals disagree with you here, and I will pull a quote when I have some time to get one that fits nicely. Just because other activities exist that cause more death does not mean that less deadly activities should be ignored. All activities should be addressed on a level commensurate to the attached morbidity and mortality. Other public health concerns ARE being addressed -- why on Earth should every single person in public health aim only at what causes the biggest problem? That does not make any sense from a public health perspective, and hopefully you understand this now.
Currently firearm injury and death research is not funded, at all. Logically it should receive funding in proportion to its associated death and injury relative to other public health concerns. Larger concerns receive larger funding. Fortunately the current administration is going to be resuming funding into firearm death & injury research, which will enable the current body of dedicated, active investigators to expand from ~6 to an acceptable number.
The author who states this is Garen Wintemute, and I will find his exact quote later if I must. In the meantime please read this Nature article: [url=http://www.nature.com/news/firearms-research-the-gun-fighter-1.12864]http://www.nature.com/news/firearms-research-the-gun-fighter-1.12864[/url]
[QUOTE]On May 24 2013 09:06 Campitor wrote: Here is another interesting paper regarding some faked research they made it past faulty peer review. And coincidentally it's regarding historical gun ownership.
[url=http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/scandal/Bellesiles18-9.pdf]http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/scandal/Bellesiles18-9.pdf[/url]. [/QUOTE]
This is interesting, but what direct relevance does it have to the papers listed on the Harvard School of Public Health's page? Are the papers I provided under the lens of international scrutiny with regard to alleged faulty methodology? I am well aware that some peer reviewed papers have been subject to criticism due to cheating in the research. Until *these* papers are shown to be the result of cheating/dishonesty, there is no reason to assume they're shit just because not every paper is genuine. The vast majority are honest, and those that are dishonest get found out by the peers, and this finding out is inevitable when the paper is under the spotlight due to the importance of its purported claims.
You should've picked the story about the South Korean stem cell researcher who faked claims that he cloned a human. That's a fantastic example of academic dishonesty on a major publication. There is no reason to assume any of the HSPH papers are like that though -- is there? Does the data conflict with other researchers' data on firearms and suicide? Are there concerns raised in response articles from the same journals?
There is no relevance other than to highlight that research, that has been peer reviewed, can be tainted with faulty data or suffer from confirmation bias. Therefore it is a good idea to review the details of the research to determine if there is or isn't any confirmation bias, shoddy work, or confounding variables. The Harvard papers are probably reliable but we can't assume they are - we need to read them to be sure.
Like I mentioned in my earlier post - who is going to pay for research papers to settle an online argument on a gaming website? If sources are sited then at the very least they should be accessible, free of charge, in their complete form and not in summary otherwise it turns into "The Harvard Papers are good because I say so and so do other Researchers". Eventually, if the research is in the public eye, the truth will come out. But that will not prevent people from referencing bad data in the meantime. Again, I'm not saying the Harvard papers are bad, but the scientist in me says I must read them first and judge for myself. It's not like Harvard researchers are beyond reproach: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/09/29/marc-hauser-research-reviewed-harvard-scandal/1600229/.
|
Honestly, it doesn't matter if we're allowed to carry them or not as the criminals will always find a way to get them anyways. banning them would change nothing
|
On May 24 2013 10:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 09:00 Kimaker wrote: There are any number of more dangerous activities that could be addressed if public safety was your REAL concern, but it's not. By saying Public Safety is your primary concern, you've automatically relegated -snip- This shows your lack of knowledge in public health, which is absolutely fine, since there is no reason you should be an expert on something you don't do. But please hear this: Public health professionals disagree with you here, and I will pull a quote when I have some time to get one that fits nicely. Just because other activities exist that cause more death does not mean that less deadly activities should be ignored. All activities should be addressed on a level commensurate to the attached morbidity and mortality. Other public health concerns ARE being addressed -- why on Earth should every single person in public health aim only at what causes the biggest problem? That does not make any sense from a public health perspective, and hopefully you understand this now. Currently firearm injury and death research is not funded, at all. Logically it should receive funding in proportion to its associated death and injury relative to other public health concerns. Larger concerns receive larger funding. Fortunately the current administration is going to be resuming funding into firearm death & injury research, which will enable the current body of dedicated, active investigators to expand from ~6 to an acceptable number. The author who states this is Garen Wintemute, and I will find his exact quote later if I must. In the meantime please read this Nature article: http://www.nature.com/news/firearms-research-the-gun-fighter-1.12864This is interesting, but what direct relevance does it have to the papers listed on the Harvard School of Public Health's page? Are the papers I provided under the lens of international scrutiny with regard to alleged faulty methodology? I am well aware that some peer reviewed papers have been subject to criticism due to cheating in the research. Until *these* papers are shown to be the result of cheating/dishonesty, there is no reason to assume they're shit just because not every paper is genuine. The vast majority are honest, and those that are dishonest get found out by the peers, and this finding out is inevitable when the paper is under the spotlight due to the importance of its purported claims. You should've picked the story about the South Korean stem cell researcher who faked claims that he cloned a human. That's a fantastic example of academic dishonesty on a major publication. There is no reason to assume any of the HSPH papers are like that though -- is there? Does the data conflict with other researchers' data on firearms and suicide? Are there concerns raised in response articles from the same journals?
I fail to see what the relevance of this entire argument is. Are you positing that the actions of one individual should be levied against the entirety of society? Just because an individual for sake of argument commits a crime, you do not punish the rest of society who have committed no crime. Confiscating, prohibiting, otherwise restricting or limiting the ability of individuals writ large to own, trade, transfer, otherwise dispose of firearms, explosives, poisons, etc. based on such idea's is quite frankly disturbing. I'm also curious why this discussion is always limited to this one item when it accounts for very limited death tolls. We should be prosecuting the people who commit these crimes, not all the people who are innocent.
At least there is one Fascist who is consistent - ol' mayor Bloomberg. If it's fun, tastes good, or otherwise entertaining, but it causes your life expectancy to lower, well by damn we're going to protect you from yourself while our thugs called the NYPD extort, pillage, plunder, and tyrannize all the people of NYC. I imagine most people who make such arguments would find themselves on the otherside of Bloomberg - quite ironic when you consider their argumentation are one and the same. Have some consistency in your views and philosophy. If you want to prohibit guns on this basis, well you should start with all the items that contribute far larger death tolls. We can start with automobiles, snack/fast foods, and the Sun (http://www.webmd.com/melanoma-skin-cancer/news/20060727/sun-kills-skin-cancer).
|
On May 24 2013 09:00 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 08:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:@Kim Are you in school at a somewhat large university? If you are, great, you probably have full access to pubmed. Some of these articles are more likely free in any case. Goto: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedEnter citation information for whichever study that interests you. If you can't get them, then you may remain a skeptic, but you may not dismiss them on methodological grounds or something which would require you to actually read the paper. And in the event you do get access and think you have a legitimate complaint, then your task is to see if this complaint is verified/corroborates by equally authoritative sources. In practice when problematic studies are published you will find peer reviewed responses to the papers, often in the same journal in which they first appeared. Unless (and I can access similar studies which say much of the same through different databases associated with my college) I don't care? I never raised any issues with the methodological grounds the arguments were being postulated upon. I take issue with why I should care. The request for the links was solely academic and stemmed out of curiosity, but I'm actually intrigued by this line of reasoning, so fuckit, let's argue! Fine, I'll concede that gun availability is positively correlated with male suicide. So what? I don't consider public health or safety a legitimate argument in this case, not because I'm unconcerned, but because people who DO consider it a legitimate argument are liars about their priorities and thus, have no rational basis from which to frame their arguments. There are any number of more dangerous activities that could be addressed if public safety was your REAL concern, but it's not. By saying Public Safety is your primary concern, you've automatically relegated yourself to: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm...essentially EATING HEALTHY as your first priority. If it isn't, and your not going to push for legislation which determines peoples eating habits before that which restricts gun availability, safety isn't your actual concern. Did I just strawman? Probably. But if public health/safety isn't the foundational axiom behind this argument of, "Gun control because positive correlation with suicide, blah, blah, blah." what is? Could it be simply a matter of, *gasp* emotional preference about the sort of society you want to live in? For clarification, this is not TOTALLY addressed to you. Partially, but rather it's addressed to the aggregate of this suicide argument I've seen so far. The whole argument reeks of Marxist dialectical methodology.
Pretty much. They attempt to corner the moral high ground by acting like they're acting selflessly and in the interests of these poor people, but it's only a mask to hide their agenda which is almost always to give more power to the State and take it away from the individual. This is why I can't take any of them seriously in these sorts of arguments. They should just come out with it all ready and be honest - you want to prohibit gun ownership so the Government will have more power to implement whatever engineered society you would prefer.
I'll be honest - I support gun ownership precisely because I want the individual to have more power than the Government, to have the ability to defend their property, their family, and their community from petty tyrants, criminals, and whatever other wanton criminality abounds. I also recognize that rights are not only those which I prefer individuals should use. I support a great many causes that, if it wasn't for partisanship on either side of the aisle a lot of progress could be made (e.g. legalizing all substances, abolishing Federal taxation and at the very least returning to apportionment, abolishing CIA/FBI/FISA/DHS/TSA and all other agencies of breach of our rights, and ending all the Wars, closing the bases, and dismantling the absurd idea of 'War on Terror'). For too often a right for a lot of people is their preferred behavior and that is a major cause for the horrible state of society we must endure right now.
|
The fact that you truly believe in your heart that all of these researchers are only collecting and analyzing data in order to support the government's alleged plot to diminish personal liberty is frankly ridiculous and disturbing.
That is all. We disagree on some very fundamental things, and I suspect you have not had much exposure to science at all, so naturally it's easy for you to brush it aside as government conspiracy to restrict your 'power' or whatever. Ah well.
|
On May 24 2013 12:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: The fact that you truly believe in your heart that all of these researchers are only collecting and analyzing data in order to support the government's alleged plot to diminish personal liberty is frankly ridiculous and disturbing.
That is all. We disagree on some very fundamental things, and I suspect you have not had much exposure to science at all, so naturally it's easy for you to brush it aside as government conspiracy to restrict your 'power' or whatever. Ah well.
Perhaps you should look up the term useful idiot.
Besides, I'm not opposed to the research, only how it is used, manipulated, and twisted to fit certain agendas.
|
|
|
|