User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 77

  1. #51
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    If the methodology is blatantly defective as you say - then where is the retraction? It really isn't that hard to get one
    You're not very familiar with the social, or "soft" sciences, are you? There is no retraction (and probably no effort towards the same) because the (spurious) correlation in the data set is not faked, the variables are just poorly chosen and ill-defined. Its little better than a study indicating that people with pace-makers are more likely to die of a heart attack.
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 07-03-2010 at 06:22 PM. Reason: forgot a word

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    You're not very familiar with the social, or "soft" sciences, are you? There is no retraction (and probably no effort towards the same) because the (spurious) correlation in the data set is not faked, the variables are just poorly chosen and ill-defined. Its little better than a study indicating that people with pace-makers are more likely to die of a heart attack.
    I think you're the one who is mistaken here - a retraction doesn't mean that the data has been "faked"... a retraction applies to data that is not scientifically sound as well as data that has been "faked" - both instances will warrant a retraction but the latter will likely result in disciplinary action and ruination as well...

    Observe and be enlightened: Taken from the actual journal where the article I quoted was published... below is their retraction policy...

    "inquiry concludes there is a reasonable possibility of misconduct, responses should be undertaken, chosen in accordance with the apparent magnitude of the misconduct. Responses may be applied separately or combined, and their implementation should depend on the circumstances of the case as well as the responses of the participating parties and institutions. The following options are ranked in approximate order of
    severity:

    • A letter of explanation (and education) sent only to the person against whom the complaint is made, where there appears to be a genuine and innocent misunderstanding of principles or procedure.

    • A letter of reprimand to the same party, warning of the consequences of future
    such instances, where the misunderstanding appears to be not entirely innocent.
    • A formal letter referring the concerns to the relevant head of educational
    institution and/or funding body, with all the commentary and evidence collected
    by the journal. This will occur when it is believed that genuine misconduct is
    likely to have occurred, and its goal will be to submit the case for consideration of
    formal review and judgment by organizations better suited to that task than a peer
    review journal.
    • A formal letter as above, including a written request to the supervising institution
    that a investigation be carried out and the findings of that inquiry reported in
    writing to the journal.
    • Publication of a notice of redundant or duplicate publication or plagiarism, if
    appropriate (and unequivocally documented). Such publication will not require
    approval of authors, and should be reported to their institution.
    • Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature,
    published in the journal, informing readers and the indexing authorities (National Library of Medicine, etc), if there is a formal finding of misconduct by an institution. Such publication will not require approval of authors, should be reported to their institution, and should be readily visible and identifiable in the journal. It should also meet other requirements established by the International Committee of Journal Editors (ICMJE: Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, accessed 05/25/07).

    Formal withdrawal or retraction of paper will take place only after a thorough
    investigation that includes due process for the author and an opportunity for the
    author to present a defense against any allegations before a neutral group of peers." - http://ajph.aphapublications.org/mis...inal110307.pdf

    "• Violation of generally accepted research practices: Serious deviation from
    accepted practices in proposing or carrying out research, improper manipulation
    of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical
    manipulations, or improper reporting of results. "
    - http://ajph.aphapublications.org/mis...inal110307.pdf

    Oh looky looky... "blatantly defective methodology" seems to fall under the misconduct listed above.. seems like anyone who questions the validity of the science in the article I quoted can easily request a retraction on multiple grounds (even the unintentional ignorance of the authors)

    Until now I've tried to be patient with what I presumed to be your ignorance of the scientific process but now it is clear that you are simply typing for the sake of typing and have no desire to actually back anything you say up with something other than your strong desire to prove that your opinion on gun control is accurate... I have officially become irritated thus if you wish to get a response from me in the future please do try to post something intelligent that you have actually researched for it's validity rather than simply vomiting whatever helps you make sense or whatever seems right to you all over a post addressed to me... So if I ignore your posts in the future it is simply because I do not have the energy to engage in a circular conversation with someone who is clearly out of their depth and truly is not attempting to bridge the gap themselves...
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  3. #53
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    Spin has a computer with access to on-line journal archives; good for her
    The actual problem seems to be that I have to rely on second hand sources for summaries of the original study (including your original citation); the article in question apparently never attempted, as I was lead to believe by your previous post, to explicitly establish a causal, as opposed to a correlative, relationship between gun possession and gun assaults. It seems that by the admission of the authors, the study does not indicate a causal relationship (i.e. they "did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault"). Which pretty much means that the study is useless and fails to render obsolete any earlier studies (which likewise managed to make it into peer-reviewed journals without retraction).

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    The actual problem seems to be that I have to rely on second hand sources for summaries of the original study (including your original citation); the article in question apparently never attempted, as I was lead to believe by your previous post, to explicitly establish a causal, as opposed to a correlative, relationship between gun possession and gun assaults. It seems that by the admission of the authors, the study does not indicate a causal relationship (i.e. they "did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault"). Which pretty much means that the study is useless and fails to render obsolete any earlier studies (which likewise managed to make it into peer-reviewed journals without retraction).
    The study actually did associate gun possession with the safety of the possessor.. if you read the abstract you can see that their entire point was gun possession does not increase safety during an assault.

    This is from the actual article -

    "Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures." - American Journal of Public Health, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

    Therefore the usefulness of the study depends on the objectiveness of the reader... If you can set aside personal beliefs about gun control and ask the question does owning a gun make a person safer during an assault the answer is not likely... since many people carry a gun for the sake of self defense this study is very relevant to a conversation about carrying guns for personal safety...

    My opinion becomes relevant in the area of why is the average person unsafe during a gun assault even if they are carrying a gun... as I have stated before - in my opinion it goes back to the issue of training... soldiers and police officers undergo extensive training in relation to using a firearm in various self defense situations... the average citizen is barely an accurate marksmen let alone adequately or extensively trained in self defense with a fireman... in my opinion this likely leads to the reason why the average citizen is disproportionately involved in failed attempts to protect themselves with firearms, accidentally shooting themselves with their own firearms, and victims of assault with their own firearms when compared to police officers and soldiers etc...


    edit: to further illustrate my point "having inoperable brain cancer will make you dead so being dead will make you have inoperable brain cancer" - I guess we'd better contact all those doctors who think their medical studies on the statistics of death caused by inoperable brain cancer are accurate and tell them that their data is invalid... You're really stretching the context of my posts as well as the study to fit your meaning but if you think about it logically and objectively what you're saying doesn't make any sense...

    Moreover for your information: when previously published research results become obsolete based on new scientific data they are not retracted - that isn't what the process is for.. The internationally recognized process for dealing with outdate research appears below.

    "Editors must assume initially that authors are reporting work based on honest observations. Nevertheless, two types of difficulty may arise.

    First, errors may be noted in published articles that require the publication of a correction or erratum on part of the work. The corrections should appear on a numbered page, be listed in the Table of Contents, include the complete original citation, and link to the original article and vice versa if online. It is conceivable that an error could be so serious as to vitiate the entire body of the work, but this is unlikely and should be addressed by editors and authors on an individual basis. Such an error should not be confused with inadequacies exposed by the emergence of new scientific information in the normal course of research. The latter requires no corrections or withdrawals." - International
    Committee of Journal Editors (ICMJE: Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, accessed 05/25/07).
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    For anyone who is interested... here is the relevant data from the article I linked to in my previous posts... I can't provide the article in it's entirety due to copyright laws, but I've posted the relevant data as well as the reference in it's entirety... Anyone who is interested in researching this article further for themselves can read the article in it's entirety at any university library and decide for themselves if they find this and other studies like it relevant to the issues relating to gun safety and gun deaths/injuries in the USA.

    "Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05)." - American Journal of Public Health, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  6. #56
    Member Red October's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    I would never say that, for the very purpose of our liberal democracy is maximise freedom while limiting power.
    You did say that, remember this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    For we know that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so we have developed the institution of liberal democracy to limit the power of the individual.
    Limiting the power of the individual is limiting an individual's freedom. Power can be mean many things. In this context it only makes sense to mean freedom. Even then, what you say is paradoxical. Freedom is a balance. The premise is power corrupts, so it must be limited. Yet when you limit freedom on one side, power, or the freedom of the government's ability, is increased. Which does nothing but transfer the corruption. It doesn't make any sense.

    The middle of your post is completely irrelevant. The topic is the right to bear arms.

  7. #57
    Epiphany
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    So you cling to the fantasy of God and guns.
    What exactly is this correlation between God and guns that you keep referring to? Are you suggesting that everyone who advocates the right to bear arms is religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Why not visit us and see liberal democracy in action?

    I will personally introduce you to our Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. She is a publicly professing atheist, who will have no truck with God or guns.

    Just click on -
    http://sydwalker.info/blog/wp-conten...ia_gillard.jpg

    And of course to ensure Julia does not become our dictator, the office of Prime Minister is not even mentioned in our Constitution.

    And quite unlike your individually powerful President, "the most powerful man in the world", our Constitution mandates that Julia can never become our Commander-in-Chief.

    And unlike your Presidency, our Constitution also mandates that Julia can never become our Head of State.

    And our Constitution further stipulates that Julia can never become our Sovereign.

    And we don't even elect Julia to the office of Prime Minister, we only elect her to be a local member of Parliament.

    No, you have "the most powerful man in the world" in your face every day, while we have beautiful Julia.
    What makes you so sure that your government won't violate your constitution and how can an unarmed society resist them if they do?

  8. #58
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    For anyone who is interested...
    Since you have easy access to the original article, perhaps you could support the veracity of the study by rebutting these specific allegations:

    "In fact, none of the evidence presented by the authors actually has any relevance to the issue of the effectiveness of defensive gun use, for the simple reason that at no point do they ever compare crime victims who used guns defensively with victims who did not. Instead, they made only the essentially irrelevant comparison between people who were shot in assaults with the rest of the population, noting whether gun possession was more common among the former than among the latter."

    "Previous published research, however, has directly compared crime victims who used guns with victims who used other self-protective strategies (including doing nothing to resist), and reached precisely the opposite conclusions from those at which Branas et al. arrived (Kleck 1988; Kleck and DeLone 1993; Southwick 2000; Tark and Kleck 2004). Significantly, Branas et al. ignore all but one of these studies, and do not share with readers the main finding of the one study they do mention in passing (Kleck and DeLone 1993) – victims who resisted with guns were less likely to be injured that those who did not. Indeed, all published research to make such direct comparisons has yielded the same conclusion."

  9. #59
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    How about providing something more than what amounts to anecdotal evidence to back up that last contention?
    I think there is a little more than anecdotal evidence to present on either side.
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I think it has something to do with A) The British B) General lawlessness in the pioneer days and C) Tension between immigrated Europeans and Native Americans.

    That was more than 100 - 150 years ago.

    Horribly outdated laws, thinking, etc.
    I agree. America is a nostelgic nation and this can have both positive and negative outcomes
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainbows View Post
    It would help if the only people who possessed firearms had them legally, which many do not. This law hurts people who abide by it, not criminals.

    ...There are too many guns in circulation here anyways to ban them... Our crime rates would just shift even if guns where made illegal, but they would not lessen.
    I do agree that more is needed than simply banning guns. There needs to be a real follow through to crack down on the illegal weapons out there. What has to be acknowledged, though, is that a lot of these guns that end up on the illegal market were legally bought weapons that were illegally sold on. Strong restrictions are needed to prevent this from happening.
    Guns do not kill people, people kill people
    No, people with guns kill people.

    Clearly, guns are not the problem - guns are not inherently evil. The problem is as you say, people. Very, very few people can be trusted with guns, especially guns that are designed purely with the intention to kill people. Automatics and handguns (and probably many semi-automatics too) should ONLY be in the hands of the military and law-enforcement officials. I know that this is unlikely to happen in the US but I do think people need to do more to prove they can be vaguely responsible and reasonable before they can aquire something like a hand-gun. Strict gun laws (in most countries) are in place for this reason.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  10. #60
    Epiphany
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    Clearly, guns are not the problem - guns are not inherently evil. The problem is as you say, people. Very, very few people can be trusted with guns, especially guns that are designed purely with the intention to kill people.
    Very few people can be trusted with guns? Seriously? The majority of people who legally own guns don't use them unlawfully.

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    Automatics and handguns (and probably many semi-automatics too) should ONLY be in the hands of the military and law-enforcement officials. I know that this is unlikely to happen in the US but I do think people need to do more to prove they can be vaguely responsible and reasonable before they can aquire something like a hand-gun. Strict gun laws (in most countries) are in place for this reason.
    Because the military and law-enforcement officials are not susceptible to corruption like the rest of these immoral, degenerate civilians? If history has taught us anything, it's that power corrupts.

Similar Threads

  1. Black Rhino Is Officially Extinct
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 10-11-2014, 03:19 PM
  2. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-29-2012, 11:34 PM
  3. Mental retardation IS a gift, It is NOT a disability
    By INTP in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 02-28-2010, 07:13 PM
  4. I'm officially emotionally retarded...
    By Halla74 in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 07-22-2009, 07:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO