Psychadelic Kitteh samples new mushroom flavour Whiskas.

By skepticlawyer

… Courtesy the photoshoppery skillz of Sacha Blumen.

Oh yes, this is also the Weekend Chit-Chat thread.

Also: apologies for my sporadic blog presence, but I have been sorting out both my life and the house over the last week. As part of the process, even non-greenie me has been feeling guilty about the amount of paper that lawyers generate. The ‘paperless office’ of the future? As if!

5 Comments

  1. kvd
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    John H @48 from your link I see “The review by Dr. Loren Marks from Louisiana State University”.

    Here is an earlier sample of his work:

    Plaintiffs’ attorneys last week introduced video of the deposition of Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, who had been expected to testify for the defendants that the ideal family structure is for children to be raised by two married “biological” parents, which Marks said meant the genetic parents.

    Marks admitted that he only read parts of the studies he relied upon in making his conclusion. It was then pointed out that those studies actually defined “biological” parents in a way that included adoptive parents — not just genetic parents. Marks then stated that the word “biological” should be deleted from the report he prepared for this case, and also admitted he considered no research on gay and lesbian parents, effectively revealing his research as fatally flawed.

    – which I got from here. I’ll leave you to Google “University of Texas sociologist and professor Mark Regnerus” to confirm – if you need – just how correct your own conclusions are re bigotry mixed up with science.

  2. John H.
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    You can’t separate politics from social science

    You can when you can demonstrate that being raised in a certain environment not only induces undesirable behavior changes but this is also mirrored in cerebral function studies which correlate with those behaviors. So if you look at the work of Adele Diamond, who found that children raised in very poor social environments had brain waves patterns “similiar to those with frontal lobe damage”, or studies on how childhood stress limits gray matter volume, makes substantial changes to the stress response axis, or how poor chidhood environments consistently increase the risk for a range of psychopathologies, then you can argue from a much more substantive base than just relying on demographic studies. Politics is always there at some level but we must make every effort to counter our innate biases and one good way to do that is to assemble evidence from a variety of fields and look for concordance. We’re getting there, and the increasing level of concordance between behavioral, physiological, neurological and demographic studies is slowly but surely giving rise to a new view of human behavior that isn’t grounded in morals but rather in observations. There will always be morals and there will always be more observations to be made, the extent to which the latter informs the former is fundamental to human progress.

  3. kvd
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    John H – I apologise if off topic, but are you in agreement with the early screening of children presently being proposed? Tried to find the least “end of the world as we know it” report. See here

  4. John H.
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    but are you in agreement with the early screening of children presently being proposed?

    Oh gosh, just a few minutes ago I posted this on Catallaxy:

    The foolish woman[Gillard] is picking up on the US trend, where over 1 million children are on antipsychotics, ritalin is a huge black market drug, opoid presribing is the new prescription killer(may even beat out vioxx), and children are being diagnosed with bipolar and ADHD pre the age of 5, which is f***g ridiculous. The psychiatry of the USA is deranged and dangerous, the last thing we need is to bring it here.

  5. kvd
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    So that would be a ‘no’ then. Thank you. With hopes I didn’t raise the blood pressure too much (more than understandable).

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*