 |
|
| What was I just saying.... | | Date Created: Jun 15, 2005, 11:25 AM |
I just posted a little diatribe about scientific misconduct and the use of statistics for political purposes.
Now I'm not accusing any of the employees at the Heritage Foundation of intentionally fabricating results. However, I do think it's a little suspicious that employees at the arch-conservative thinktank end up making very different claims about those so-called "virginity pledges" than other researchers. The fact that these claims align so nicely with their conservative agenda seems a bit convenient.
Now, I'm not trying to be cynical, I'm trying to be skeptical. We've got two different claims from the same set of data. How do we make a decision? Well, first of all, the new claims are based on a 0.10 level of significance, instead of the more typical 0.05. Second of all, these new claims have not yet gone through any sort of peer review to get published. In addition, instead of simply stating their claims, Rector and Johnson go the extra step of claiming that the previous researchers "deliberately misled the press and public." To me, that kind of claim is red flag that something else is going on in this report. Furthermore, they claim that the previous report is, "junk science, a willful deception of the American public."
If you read the actual report, these conservative researchers do appear to make some interesting claims about the previous research. It is always possible that Bearman and Bruckner are the ones with the results skewed by an agenda. (When reading this report, remember that "statistical significance" means something different to the conservatives (0.10) than the Columbia researchers (0.05). Maybe these conservatives' claims will end up being reasonable, but it's too soon to tell at this point.
Regardless of what happens with these claims, what I am absolutely sure of is that these statistics will be the only ones quoted by conservatives -- just as the Columbia results will be the only ones quoted by liberals.
(For the record, I've got no problem with these virginity pledges, but I wish there were more focus on safer-sex education for those who fall off the wagon.) |
|
|
|
|
