Posted on 05/24/2015 5:48:59 AM PDT by SMGFan
The public unraveling of one of last year’s highest impact studies, “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality” (Science, December 2014), began the way that many posts for the science watchdog blog Retraction Watch do: Its editor, Ivan Oransky, was mentioned in a tweet. "That @sciencemagazine study on contact w gay ppl changing minds abt gay marriage? It was faked... attn @ivanoransky."
''''''''
In the study, real canvassers went out into the field and tried to change people’s minds about gay marriage. The data quantifying the impact they had—what the study was intended to measure, with all its real-world implications—LaCour faked. To many, including those from the Los Angeles LGBT center working with LaCour on data collection, the results seemed too good to be true. Indeed, other studies have demonstrated that trying to change a person’s belief can often accomplish the opposite: rooting them more firmly in what they have always believed. Though that is not to say that the results LaCour obtained are impossible to demonstrate honestly. In fact, had he recorded and processed the data produced in the field by the canvassers working with him, it's possible that he might still have reached a similar conclusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
Queers are deceivers. It is only reasonable to assume they will conduct surveys about their morbid condition fraudulently.
After Brendan Eich, after Memories Pizza, after Orson Scott Card, after Coyote Grill, after all of the people who have had their lives ruined by vindictive homosexuals angry that they do not hold the current politically correct position, what reason would I have to engage in a frank and truthful discussion of my opinions with a push-poller standing on my front porch?
This guy already has my name and address. He has made his opinion clear by trying to convince me of a certain position. At that point, I am saying whatever I have to say to get this guy off my front porch.
>>>> ...... it’s possible that he might still have reached a similar conclusion.
If that IS the case, why would he fudge data? The logical conclusion is that because the data either does not support “the foregone conclusion”, or at best falls in ‘statistically marginal’ conclusion either way.
But TNR and the progressives are bound and determined to continue to ‘study until they’re proven right’.
Fudge data? Eeeewwwwww.....
Except a number of people have predilections towards strange/odd practices i.e. starting fires, eating dirt or pebbles, or sticking objects in places they don't belong.
Because these people are not evil that does not make what they do normal or advisable. In fact, doctors/shrinks try to cure people of those weird habits. Hopefully, some day somebody will find a cure for homosexual proclivities.
The article has been up at New Republic since Thursday and there are 2 replies.
Yanno, don’t care where they poke/pet each other, but they should NEvER be allowed to do what NATURE prevents them from doing !!!...Being Parents !
Whether religious, or atheist, permiting them to violate God, or Mama Nature’s rules is BULL !
saw an ad for Wells Fargo depicting 2 lesbians learning some signs to adopt a deaf child. Seems (relatively) innocent until you understand the terrible difficulty deaf children have socializing and learning social norms. Raising a deaf girl in a home with 2 mommies is extreme abuse. Wells Fargo stepped in it, big time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.