On the contrary, onthebeach, I know a lot about statistics and how to apply different statistical concepts and methodologies to different datasets to achieve accurate results.

I understand concepts such as standard deviation, standard error mean, normal distribution, t-tests, ANOVA tests, z-scores, confidence intervals, chi scores, dependant and independent variables, levene's test, p-values, degrees of freedom, one- and two-tailed tests, skewness, kurtosis, Pearson's r, Spearman' rho, histograms, scattergrams, error bar charts, box charts and leaf and stem plots. I could keep going if you'd like?

So if you claim to have already taken the time to determine that the study was junk science, then please, by all means share. I'll understand what you're talking about.

I didn't just describe hypocrisy, phanto.

<<We all know what hypocrisy is but you have not explained how or why it is relevant to the arguments proposed by the original author.>>

I also explained why exposing the hypocrite is relevant to any discussion on any topic.

I also wasn’t referring to the article specifically, but also the comments it generated.

<<He has presented an argument which condemns what is being taught in schools as inappropriate.>>

Correct.

<<The point I am trying to make is why is it relevant that some people who present these arguments might indulge in homosexual activities.>>

I know what that point is that you're trying to make. That’s why I explained why hypocrisy is relevant.

<<You presented evidence to say this is true and what if it is – how does it in anyway detract from their argument?>>

The logic may or may not be sound, but the argument risks not being taken as seriously if those who convey it are hypocritical, and this is a problem if the argument is a good one. This goes back to the point that I made yesterday in my justification, which you apparently missed. This is why it's expected that people practice what they preach.

<<Are you saying that an argument should only be considered if the proponent behaves in accord with the beliefs they express?>>

No.

<<An argument should rise or fall on its merit...>>

Correct. But those arguments lose traction when the arguer is a hypocrit.

<<Once we begin to examine someone’s behaviour then we are no longer examining their argument.>>

No, most of us are capable of doing both at the same time.

<<Resorting to pointing the finger and belittling the arguer because they are not behaving in accordance with their stated beliefs is desperate.>>

No, it’s relevant, and I have already explained why. You have not countered this

<<This is not ‘amateur psychology’…>>

What you were engaging in earlier was.

<<If your post was irrelevant to the arguments presented then what other purpose could it have possibly served?>>

You haven't yet demonstrated that it was.

“I also explained why exposing the hypocrite is relevant to any discussion on any topic.”

No you have not. You said –

“Hypocrisy is deceit through dissimulation, and a façade of virtue despite succumbing to vice. Therefore, exposing the hypocrite has relevance.”

What kind of logic is that? A definition followed by an assertion that it is relevant to the current thread without any reason given as to why? An explanation of why is not presented at all. An orange is a fruit – therefore it has relevance to the debate.

“I also wasn’t referring to the article specifically, but also the comments it generated.”

It does not matter the same principles of relevance apply.

“This is why it's expected that people practice what they preach”

Expected by whom? So we should always check a person’s behaviour before we accept their arguments, no matter how convincing they are? Unless their behaviour stacks up their argument should be dismissed?

“But those arguments lose traction when the arguer is a hypocrit.”

Can you explain how this works exactly? Why does it lose traction? What happens in the mind of the reader to the value of the arguments when they find out the arguer does not behave according to their stated values?

“No, most of us are capable of doing both at the same time.”

No we are not they are two entirely separate activities. One is examining their arguments for flaws in logic and reasoning and the other is about collecting facts about how they behave outside the discussion.

“No, it’s relevant, and I have already explained why. You have not countered this”

You have explained nothing.

I already explained the logic to you, phanto.

<<What kind of logic is that?>>

Here it is again:

“…the argument risks not being taken as seriously if those who convey it are hypocritical, and this is a problem if the argument is a valid one.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18217#323760)

Hypocrisy, for this reason, should be exposed and shamed at all opportunities so as to discourage it. Like, say, paedophilia, for example.

<<Expected by whom?>>

Society in general. Do you not think the fact that the hypocrisy of moral pontificators, like priests, for example, adds an additional layer of concern because of the treachery?

We have defamation laws because it is in society's interests to protect the reputations of those whose reputations deserve protecting. Similarly, hypocrites need to be exposed because good ideas need to be protected by not being promoted by hypocrites.

<<So we should always check a person’s behaviour before we accept their arguments…?>>

No. There is nothing wrong with giving most people the benefit of the doubt.

<<Unless their behaviour stacks up their argument should be dismissed?>>

No, I never suggested that.

<<Can you explain how this works exactly? Why does it lose traction?>>

See my example above regarding the moral pontification of priests.

<<What happens in the mind of the reader to the value of the arguments when they find out the arguer does not behave according to their stated values?>>

They are more likely to reject the claim/moralising as illegitimate because not even the claimant/moraliser appears to believe what they’re saying.

<<No we are not [capable of doing both at the same time] they are two entirely separate activities.>>

Yes, we are.

People can assess more than one claim at a time, while also taking into account more than one factor at a time. We have hundreds of years’ worth of research on every possible topic to attest to this. I’m sorry you don’t feel you’re capable of doing what every other human being is apparently capable of doing.

<<You have explained nothing.>>

Actually, I have. At least twice now too, if you count my quoting of myself above.

AJ Phillips,

Since you imply you have considerable expertise in statistics you should have no difficulty in my question, here again,

<What about YOU show how reliable the 'finding' is that you support and starting with this statement from the 'research',

"My adult website subscription data is available on the zip code level">

This is what you said, so go ahead and show your evidence,

"The second claim is hypocritical not so much because conservatives appear to be the biggest consumers of porn (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers), but because they’re the biggest consumers of gay porn too"

You are relying on your weasel word "appear" (your 'out' and back door), but then you assert that they are "the biggest".

It is all your wishful thinking. Your 'expertise' is in spinning wobblies through insinuation. Absolute bunkum!

onthebeach,

I have looked at the data and see no major flaws, and I don’t have the word count to rehash all of the justifications and data analysis in the article. You, on the other hand, claim to have spotted problems. So how about you give us one?

Is your quote from the article, “My adult website subscription data is available on the zip code level”, the supposed to be the flaw? And if so, why is it such a major flaw? Because it doesn’t go down to the individual level? That’s not a flaw.

It is impossible to ask absolutely every single person their political leanings and levels of porn consumption, and postcodes have proven themselves to be a reliable way of determining the overall political persuasion of the residents in an area. Politicians know this only too well. If you consider that to be a fatal flaw, then every research project ever undertaken is highly suspect.

Some of the statistical concepts that I mentioned were designed specifically for the purpose of countering and measuring such unavoidable, potential sampling weaknesses. There are various sampling techniques, such as between-group and within-group techniques, all with their strengths and weaknesses. Different techniques are used to minimise sampling error and any possibly lack of representation of the overall population.

The degree of certainty that may be achieved (with regards to a data sample’s accuracy) can be calculated to ensure that the samples are an accurate representation of the population. This is done using standard normal distribution, standard deviation, the standard error mean, the p-value, confidence intervals, Cohen’s d, histograms and box charts.

So again I ask, how exactly is the data flawed? Because, as a flaw, the fact that the researcher’s data was based on adult website subscription at the postcode level just doesn’t cut it, I’m afraid.

It’s a scholarly article, onthebeach. Do you really think it was likely to have passed the peer-review process if some schmo, without the vaguest understanding of statistics and research, was able to spot such an obvious “flaw”?

Let’s get real here.