So gay!!!

[One Brow]

Eric, you have, in the past, claimed to teach statistics at the college level. I would suggest you take your argument about how 200 becomes 100,000 to your colleagues on the stat staff and see what they tell you.

When I present an argument about 200 becoming 100,000, I will indeed do that. I won't bother to present arguments about self-selection bias, the difference between a population and a sample, the difference between random selection and targetted selection, and other such concern about the Spitzer study, because it would bore them to tears. They are so glaringly obvious even you can't bring yourself to defend them.

 

[Hopper]

Let me ask you once again, Eric: Are you claiming that the blog authors' claim (based upon a 37 out of 100,000 calcuation) that there was only a .04% success rate, is iN ANY WAY correct or appropriate from a statistical standpoint? And I mean a properly applied statistical standpoint, not one you may want to invent on the spot.

 

[Hopper]

These attempts at sophistry get irritating, Eric. I can address questions of sample size, etc., to each and every statistical analysis EVER done on ANY topic. So what?

Say a guy makes 100 out of 200 free throws. Is it indisputable that he is, and always will be, a "50% free throw shooter?" Of course not, but I wouldn't be misleading or making claims without a basis if I argued that he had a 50% success rate when shooting free throws.

I could NOT claim to have a basis, or to be anything OTHER THAN misleading, if I argued that, since he only made 100, and he could have shot one billion, he only made 100 out of one billion.

 

[Scat]

I could NOT claim to have a basis, or to be anything OTHER THAN misleading, if I argued that, since he only made 100, and he could have shot one billion, he only made 100 out of one billion.

Dude, everyone knows that if one guy makes 100 out of 200 free throws that extends to the entire population. Can we change the parameters of the example though? Let's say he made 190 out of 200. I'd much rather be known as a 95% free throw shooter.

 

[Hopper]

What I believe Meese is referring to is Finding 70 in which Walker states: "Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology."

I did get off my ***, well, not literally, but you know what I mean, eh, to look at ''finding 70," Biley (thanks for the link, which made it all possible--possible because it was easy to click on, I mean). You conveniently left off the VERY FIRST sentence of that finding, though. That sentence says: "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment." It is a factor, and it was presumably this claim that Meese had in mind (assuming he had finding 70 in mind to begin with, which I am not disputing at this point, but I am simply "assuming" it).

The Stacy study would present "serious debate" about any claim by Walker that "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment," as would, needless to say, many, many other studies done in the field of child development.

If I wanted to "defend" Meese, who I don't really care about, but I will defend him anyway, in the context of this suit, I don't think Walker can legitmately find "as a fact" anything that is not virtually "beyond doubt." Why? Because there must be no rational reason whatsoever to uphold a legislative (or voters) decision before a court can overturn it on the basis of the equal protection clause as it has been applied to gays (as opposed to, say, races). In that context to call it a "fact" is, in effect, to say there is no rational reason (and it is hence "beyond doubt") to believe otherwise.

 

[billyshelby]

I did get off my ***, well, not literally, but you know what I mean, eh, to look at ''finding 70," Biley (thanks for the link, which made it all possible--possible because it was easy to click on, I mean). You conveniently left off the VERY FIRST sentence of that finding, though. That sentence says: "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment." It is a factor, and it was presumably this claim that Meese had in mind (assuming he had finding 70 in mind to begin with, which I am not disputing at this point, but I am simply "assuming" it).

The Stacy study would present "serious debate" about any claim by Walker that "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment," as would, needless to say, many, many other studies done in the field of child development.

It was in no way meant to be misleading on my part, and I wouldn't be surprised Meese, a skilled attorney, would look for any leg he could stand on to make his case. But I'm not surprised to see that you continue to use the Stacey study to unilaterally throw out any studies done on the subject, while assuming that there are 'many, many, many' other studies done in the field of child development which indicate that there is a sharp distinction between gender in raising children. Of course, to back his own claim, Walker cited studies. So again, the obvious presumption is that Walker had facts in evidence which aren't arbitrary, but included in his opinion, which you apparently really, really, really don't want to look at. You'd rather just say there a many, many, many studies which contradict those studies and rest your case that Walker's finding couldn't possibly be 'beyond serious debate.'

 

[Hopper]

It's been said over and over, Biley. The question is NOT whether Walker has some evidence which supports his personal view. That's irrelevant. I never said, and am not saying, that he has no evidence for his view, either. You seem to keep thinking that this is simply a question of whose belief is "better." It aint.

Because you were composing your response as I was editing mine, you may have missed this:

"If I wanted to "defend" Meese, who I don't really care about, but I will defend him anyway, in the context of this suit, I don't think Walker can legitmately find "as a fact" anything that is not virtually "beyond doubt." Why? Because there must be no rational reason whatsoever to uphold a legislative (or voters) decision before a court can overturn it on the basis of the equal protection clause as it has been applied to gays (as opposed to, say, races). In that context to call it a "fact" is, in effect, to say there is no rational reason (and it is hence "beyond doubt") to believe otherwise."

I could add that Walker's basic finding of fact is nothing more than the part you omitted. He flatly states that: "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment." What he goes on to say after that is a merely one possible "illustration" of this supposed fact. It is some "elaboration," not the fact itself.

 

[billyshelby]

It's been said over and over, Biley. The question is NOT whether Walker has some evidence which supports his personal view. That's irrelevant. I never said, and am not saying, that he has no evidence for his view, either. You seem to keep thinking that this is simply a question of whose belief is "better." It aint.

Because you were composing your response as I was editing mine, you may have missed this:

"If I wanted to "defend" Meese, who I don't really care about, but I will defend him anyway, in the context of this suit, I don't think Walker can legitmately find "as a fact" anything that is not virtually "beyond doubt." Why? Because there must be no rational reason whatsoever to uphold a legislative (or voters) decision before a court can overturn it on the basis of the equal protection clause as it has been applied to gays (as opposed to, say, races). In that context to call it a "fact" is, in effect, to say there is no rational reason (and it is hence "beyond doubt") to believe otherwise."

I could add that Walker's basic finding of fact is nothing more than the part you omitted. He flatly states that: "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment." What he goes on to say after that is a merely one possible "illustration" of this supposed fact. It is some "elaboration," not the fact itself.

Yeah, but he doesn't say it's 'beyond doubt.' He says it's beyond 'serious debate.' Walker chose his words very carefully. I would assume those words will be scrutinized just as closely on appeal. As will the context of his word choices relative the total opinion. Ultimately, I would guess his stipulation of 'Fact' will be confirmed or rejected on the basis of how those words correspond to the legal reasoning for why he stipulated as such.

The argument as to whether it is ACTUALLY beyond serious debate doesn't seem that relevant. But as I previously stated, his job is to weigh the evidence he has in front of him. A reasonable person COULD conclude that given those facts there was not actual 'serious debate' as to the truth. Flimsy arguments to the contrary, sure. Widely refuted studies that draw specious conclusions, sure. A mountain of much more credible evidence from peer reviewed studies, probably. I'm not weighing in on what Walker saw, only speculating that this is what he did see, and thus worded his Finding of Fact to reflect that.

 

[Hopper]

I could add that Walker's basic finding of fact is nothing more than the part you omitted. He flatly states that: "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment." What he goes on to say after that is a merely one possible "illustration" of this supposed fact. It is some "elaboration," not the fact itself.

I could, for example, claim that "there is no difference between cats and dogs." Then, to "illustrate" my claim, and give some support for it, I could go on the point out that "both dogs and cats have 4 legs, and, furthermore, they both have tails" This would hardly "prove" my original claim, although it would give some "support" to it.

If my claim were simply that cats and dogs both have 4 legs and tail, sure. But that wasn't my claim. My claim was that there was NO difference between them.

 

[Hopper]

The argument as to whether it is ACTUALLY beyond serious debate doesn't seem that relevant. But as I previously stated, his job is to weigh the evidence he has in front of him. A reasonable person COULD conclude that given those facts there was not actual 'serious debate' as to the truth. Flimsy arguments to the contrary, sure. Widely refuted studies that draw specious conclusions, sure. A mountain of much more credible evidence from peer reviewed studies, probably. I'm not weighing in on what Walker saw, only speculating that this is what he did see, and thus worded his Finding of Fact to reflect that.

I've said it before, many times, in this thread, Biley, and I have said (or let courts say why, when I quote them) why this is NOT the issue. There's no new way to say it. Either you understand, or you don't. Given the content of the statement I have cited above, you don't.

As I said very early, the judge could find as a "fact" that (1) the moon is made of green cheese, or (2) that brunettes are more attractive than blondes. He can find "as a fact" anything he wants. That doesn't settle the issue.

A court can't change opinion into facts (case 2, above) merely by calling them "facts"

Nor can it bind a higher court to accept as "fact" something which is not a fact (case 1, above).

What this particular judge wants, believes, or would implement as policy if he were dictator, is NOT the issue here.

 

[One Brow]

Let me ask you once again, Eric: Are you claiming that the blog authors' claim (based upon a 37 out of 100,000 calcuation) that there was only a .04% success rate, is iN ANY WAY correct or appropriate from a statistical standpoint? And I mean a properly applied statistical standpoint, not one you may want to invent on the spot.

I think the conversion rate for Spitzer's study it is an estimation, based on a few assumptions, and probably has an error margin of two degrees of magnitude in either direction. I think the conversion rate estimate for the Schroeder & Shidlo study probably has an error margin of about an order of magnitude, based on how that sample was collected. On the other hand, the conversion estimate for the Exodus study mentioned was very accurate, because it was a study of the full population.

These attempts at sophistry get irritating, Eric. I can address questions of sample size, etc., to each and every statistical analysis EVER done on ANY topic. So what?

So such a discussion is very important for understanding what the study in question does and does not indicate.

Say a guy makes 100 out of 200 free throws. Is it indisputable that he is, and always will be, a "50% free throw shooter?" Of course not, but I wouldn't be misleading or making claims without a basis if I argued that he had a 50% success rate when shooting free throws.

I could NOT claim to have a basis, or to be anything OTHER THAN misleading, if I argued that, since he only made 100, and he could have shot one billion, he only made 100 out of one billion.

The author of the article does not make any such claim, either. He does use the size of NARTH and a probable client load to get his esitmate of 100,000 clients, which he claims is conservative. However, if you have a better estimate of the annual client load of repartative therapy clients by NARTH-affiliated psychiatrists, we can certainly substitute that. I have already looked at the NARTH site for that information, but was not able to locate it. If you can find it and send it on to OCRT, they will probably correct their numbers. So what's your estimate?

 

[Hopper]

Let me ask you once again, Eric: Are you claiming that the blog authors' claim (based upon a 37 out of 100,000 calcuation) that there was only a .04% success rate, is iN ANY WAY correct or appropriate from a statistical standpoint? And I mean a properly applied statistical standpoint, not one you may want to invent on the spot.

I think the conversion rate for Spitzer's study it is an estimation...

That's not what I asked you. Just answer the question, yes or no.

The author of the article does not make any such claim, either....So what's your estimate?

1.Then how does he get his .04% success factor?

2. To suggest that any such estimate is needed is the very kind of utter stupidity that I'm not even going to address, Eric. Take the suggestion that such an estimate is required to calculate a statistically accurate "success rate" to some COMPLETE CHUMP, and he too may think its relevant. If so, maybe he'll think it important to try to answer it. I don't.