Shot in the Dark

Because Science!

It’s become something of a low-impact cult on the left to declare oneself “driven by science”.

This “drive” usually manifests less in the form of “being able to develop a testable, falseable hypothesis” or design a valid, controlled course of experiements than in believing Neil DeGresse Tyson is the dreamiest or posting Bill Nye memes on social media, of course.  But to each their own.

Of course, behind all the “I F****ng Love Science” reposts and the articles about those dumb flat-earthers, actual comprehension of science is often pretty weak.

Example:  watch the heads melt when you tell “science” cultists that there is no actual controlled, empirical, scientific evidence that gay people are “born that way”.

(The response is usually a political, not scientific, one; “you think they choose to be gay?  Of course not.   Point is, there are more than one possible answer – and while “Nye-ence” is perfectly fine drawing “scientific” conclusions from political data, science isn’t).

Posted

in

,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

9 responses to “Because Science!”

  1. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    It’s really something that observant people have known for decades–the apparently heterosexual father comes out in his 40s during his midlife crisis. Plus, that twins study that found only 50% correlation to identical genetics….um, guys, we’re going to have to do better than DNA to explain this one.

  2. J. Ewing Avatar
    J. Ewing

    These idiots can’t even pass a single logic test. If you were born with male parts and can father children, how can you be sexually active only with males, unless you make that choice?

  3. Mammuthus Primigenius Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenius

    Current political orthodoxy (it has nothing to do with science) is that a man who has lived a normal, heterosexual lifestyle, with multiple children and marriages, and comes out as gay when he is middle aged has always been homosexual.
    But a homosexual man, who, in his middle age, rejects homosexuality and says he is now heterosexual, is lying or has a mental disorder.
    Look up Wiki’s bio of Rolling Stone editor Jan Wenner and tell me what category you put him in? Sexually fashionable?

  4. Alt-Good Swiftee Avatar
    Alt-Good Swiftee

    “To claim a 70 per cent predictive value of something as complex as homosexuality is bold indeed. I wait with baited breath for a full peer-reviewed article.”

    Never gonna happen. Anyone that attempts to do a genuine scientific inquiry into the reprobate left’s #1 golden calf will not survive the suggestion.

    All one has to do is research the history of de-listing homosexuality from the APA’s DSM to see how this thing rolls.

    In the absence of peer reviewed science, I usually just inject “bi-sexuality” into any argument “science loving” reprobates might be tossing out in favor of a biological excuse for perversion.

  5. Mammuthus Primigenius Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenius

    I have referred people to the APA’s description of what creates “sexual orientation” because so very many people believe that science says it is congenital (which is not the same thing as hereditary).
    No one knows. Modern psychologists and physicians have been working diligently for decades to determine a way to determine the biological cause of sexual orientation. They have failed.
    The most dishonest part of the APA’s description is that it says that “nature and nurture may both play important roles.” Nature and nurture do not involve an individual’s choice. According to the APA, whatever sexual orientation a person has, it was imposed upon them.
    This is the keystone of modernism, and an idea most people reject out of hand: you are not a result of choices you have made, but of fate and the choices other people have made.

  6. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    Worth noting, with regards to that 70% statistic, is that an experimental power of 70% is “not worth fertilizer” in statistical terms, and often results from an analytic technique called “fishing for hypotheses.” It can be useful if it is followed by a real experiment, which here it was not.

  7. passout76 Avatar
    passout76

    So we were lied to. I spent a lot of effort and time to prove it 15 years ago about this very issue. But now the proponents of the sexual revolution are also saying it. Studies are proving that sexuality is “fluid.” So if you want to change your sexuality so that you can “enhance” your sex life…go for it. From Powerline we have Steve Hayward’s story of a lesbian who loves another lesbian but now the love of her life is admitting that she is actually a male and has begun the “big change.”
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/this-week-in-gender-dystopia.php

    So what’s a lesbian to do? I guess she’ll have to call in Marcus Bachmann for some reparative therapy. It is all about choice isn’t it. Oh wait he’s being sanctioned because…
    http://www.startribune.com/mental-clinic-owned-by-marcus-bachmann-sanctioned-for-violating-state-rules/416879364/

    Amazing just amazing.

  8. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Chelsey Manning anyone? Perfect example.

  9. Mammuthus Primigenius Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenius

    Homosexuality, as understood for millennia, was actions. It was behavior. It was not this undetectable thing called “sexual orientation” (why isn’t thievery or greed or a “social orientation”?).
    They are looking for a biological cause of a thing that does not exist. Once you identify homosexuality as a behavior, you are free to say that it has many causes, or combinations of causes, which is almost certainly closer to the truth.
    Otherwise you find yourself doing silly things like believing that all the homosexual activity in prison is being done by heterosexuals, while the male heterosexual activity needed to have children is often done by homosexuals.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.