From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 12:29:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.231527.2873@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com
(Brian Douglass) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.183701.25574@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>>>I don't know which is right, lifestyle or biological.  Maybe both, maybe
>>>neither, the evidence is still just too evenly split.

>>This is idiotic.  

>Yeah, it's idiotic to state that I don't have a position between 'nature vs
>nurture', because there is no conclusive scientific evidence to either side.
>You, I'm sure would rather just jump in with a conclusion based on what?
>Blue sky thoughts?

>>The argument in scientific circles is not between
>>biology and "lifestyle choice", it is between biology and
>>early childhood experience.  

Can you read?  You've quoted what I said above, where I quite clearly
state that what I am calling "idiotic" is to say that the scientific
arguments are between the advocates of "lifestyle choice" and the
advocates of biology.  I suggest your refrain from the futile and,
yes, idiotic exercise of making up straw men and then attacking them.
If you want to argue with me, I suggest the following steps:

(1) Read what I have written.

(2) Think about what you want to say.

(3) Post a response.

>I think to limit the discussion to childhood experience would be a
>disservice to the argument, as there is plenty of ancedotal evidence of
>adult experiences influencing sexual preference.

I'm particularly interested in the question of how Kinsey 0's and 6's
get that way, and wonder what anecdotal evidence you have which has
any relevance to this at all.

>The study I quoted stated of the prevailing nuture theories as
>determinants, none had any statistical significance, therefore, further
>study into biological determinants is urged.  To take an absolute of "early
>childhood experience is not very important" out of that is such a stretch of 
>thought as to think you can bungy jump with a rubber band from the morning 
>paper.  It is not justified.

You don't have to be a Popperean to feel that there is something to be
said for having a falsifiable hypothesis.  The hypothesis
"homosexuality is caused by some, unspecified, early childhood
experience" is not falsifiable.  Popper would not call it a reasonable
scientific hypothesis.  I fail to see what heuristic value it has at
this point, as just about anything anyone thinks is reasonable has
been looked at.

>>If you have a study claiming that "lifestyle choice" is the
>>reason some people are exclusively attracted to the same sex whereas
>>others are exclusively attracted to the opposite one, please cite it.
>>Otherwise, I shall have to conclude you are talking nonsense.

>I conclude you think nonsense, because you cannot produce any evidence that
>conclusively or overwhelmingly proves homosexuality is biological.

Another of your stunning leaps of illogic.  What possible connection
does my sentence and your response to it have?  How can anyone
possibly conclude that asking for evidence that homosexuality is a
"lifestyle choice" entails believing that it is biologically
determined?

>So while it may suit your agenda to push a purely biological determinant, I
>will remain squarely on the fence until all the facts are in.

When in doubt, accuse someone of having an agenda.  What is your
agenda in claiming (completely contrary to fact, evidence, and the
elementary exercise of reason) that I am engaged in pushing pure
biological determinism?  Do you *ever* bother to either read or think
about the articles you respond to?

>While this suffices in the general case, in this specific case, I see
>nothing in my statements that is "derisive" of either side.  Only an
>acknowledgement that both sides have sufficient circumstantial evidence to 
>justify their position.   And mores facts should be produced and less
>verbage.

You were derisive about even having a discussion of the evidence, not
of the "sides".

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh