Causality? Or Mere Correlation?
The Associated Press is reporting that a new study out of a Canadian University “adds weight to the idea that sexual orientation has a physical basis.” A professor at Michigan State University quoted in the story goes further, stating that the study “absolutely” confirms a physical basis/cause for homosexuality.
Granted, I have not read the study itself. All I have read is the Associated Press story about the study. But after having read that story, I was left with the inescapable impression that, either the AP writer failed to include all the findings that back up the bold conclusion regarding a physical basis for sexual orientation, or the logic used to arrive at that conclusion is extremely weak, at best.
According to the story, Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in Saint Catherines, Ontario studied a total of 944 persons, taking note of the number and gender of each man’s siblings, and whether the siblings were related by blood or adoption. What he found was that, as opposed to the stated overall rate of homosexuality in men of three percent, men with older biological brothers saw that rate jump to five percent.
Somehow, despite the fact that this still leaves ninety-five percent of the men with older brothers as heterosexual, the always-rational minds of academia – with no agenda-driven motivation, mind you – tell us that this proves that there is a physical prenatal cause.
Never mind the still much larger occurrence of heterosexuality in the group singled out. Never mind that the common factor between the homosexual men studied – older biological brothers – is only one of several that could be cited as possible causes. Never mind that no information is given as to what portion of the overall male homosexual population that this group comprises. There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here of the difference between correlation and causality.
It seems the study shows a correlation between older male biological siblings and homosexuality, albeit a very miniscule one. But even granting that, it falls a long way from establishing causality.
The past several Boston Marathons have been won by black men. There is a correlation there. But it does not prove that success at road racing is determined by skin color. But that is the conclusion that the logic in this story would lead one to.
People who know me know how I feel about homosexuality and, based on what anyone can read at other places on this site, it shouldn’t be too hard for them to surmise. But even if I were to grant that there may be a physical cause that affects a miniscule portion of the population in the way claimed – leaving aside the question of whether that alone would make such behavior justifiable – and that the evidence for it is out there somewhere, what is revealed in this story is most certainly not that piece of evidence.
As I noted, I have not read the study – and likely won’t. So I will happily acknowledge that perhaps there is some vital piece of data revealed in it that the AP story left out, and I’ll be happy to consider it, if anyone cares to provide it. In the meantime, I’ll echo the comment of Professor Digory Kirke – of Chronicles of Narnia fame – in asking what kind of logic are they teaching students in schools nowadays.
Granted, I have not read the study itself. All I have read is the Associated Press story about the study. But after having read that story, I was left with the inescapable impression that, either the AP writer failed to include all the findings that back up the bold conclusion regarding a physical basis for sexual orientation, or the logic used to arrive at that conclusion is extremely weak, at best.
According to the story, Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in Saint Catherines, Ontario studied a total of 944 persons, taking note of the number and gender of each man’s siblings, and whether the siblings were related by blood or adoption. What he found was that, as opposed to the stated overall rate of homosexuality in men of three percent, men with older biological brothers saw that rate jump to five percent.
Somehow, despite the fact that this still leaves ninety-five percent of the men with older brothers as heterosexual, the always-rational minds of academia – with no agenda-driven motivation, mind you – tell us that this proves that there is a physical prenatal cause.
Never mind the still much larger occurrence of heterosexuality in the group singled out. Never mind that the common factor between the homosexual men studied – older biological brothers – is only one of several that could be cited as possible causes. Never mind that no information is given as to what portion of the overall male homosexual population that this group comprises. There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here of the difference between correlation and causality.
It seems the study shows a correlation between older male biological siblings and homosexuality, albeit a very miniscule one. But even granting that, it falls a long way from establishing causality.
The past several Boston Marathons have been won by black men. There is a correlation there. But it does not prove that success at road racing is determined by skin color. But that is the conclusion that the logic in this story would lead one to.
People who know me know how I feel about homosexuality and, based on what anyone can read at other places on this site, it shouldn’t be too hard for them to surmise. But even if I were to grant that there may be a physical cause that affects a miniscule portion of the population in the way claimed – leaving aside the question of whether that alone would make such behavior justifiable – and that the evidence for it is out there somewhere, what is revealed in this story is most certainly not that piece of evidence.
As I noted, I have not read the study – and likely won’t. So I will happily acknowledge that perhaps there is some vital piece of data revealed in it that the AP story left out, and I’ll be happy to consider it, if anyone cares to provide it. In the meantime, I’ll echo the comment of Professor Digory Kirke – of Chronicles of Narnia fame – in asking what kind of logic are they teaching students in schools nowadays.
posted by JeffreyH | 12:14 PM
7 Comments:
You are inconsistent. On the one hand, while trying to use my Boston Marathon analogy, you say that there is a "good chance" that the Boston Marathon will be won by a black man. That would translate to saying that the study establishes that there is a "good chance" that men born to women who have previously given birth to male children have an "increased chance" of being homosexual than the previous child.
"Increased" chance? Perhaps, based on the study. But 5% would hardly be considered a "good" chance, even if it is "increased" over 3%.
And my original statement that you quote was based on the actual quote from a Michigan State University Professor who said that this study absolutely proves a physical basis. It does not absolutely prove any such thing, if all that we know is what is revealed in the AP story.
Glad to see you admit that you're changing the subject, as it seems to be the tactic of choice for many liberals with whom I discuss such things - even the ones who discuss such things in a respectful manner. For the moment, though, I'll bite.
First of all, I'll note that you once again presume that all conservatives follow the same line of reasoning to reach their conclusions. This is not true.
There are different reasons different conservatives may feel the way they do about homosexuals. There are even different ways different conservatives feel about homosexuals. For example, some hate them and feel compelled to rake them over the coals. Some - like myself - do not, but merely believe that they have made - yes - a bad choice.
And let ME digress for a moment here. I do believe the decision to engage in homosexual relations is a choice someone makes. I also believe that the decision to engage in heterosexual relations outside of marriage is a choice someone makes.
Even if I were to acknowledge that the urge to engage in homosexual relations is "natural," that would make it no more right than giving in to the urge to engage in illicit heterosexual relations. Neither is more right, or wrong, than the other.
I don't understand why our society has decided that people have to be having sex, no matter what their personal situation. I personally resisted for years, until I became a married man.
I believe that human beings are a cut above the rest of creation, being created in the image of the Divine. One of the ways we demonstrate this is by our ability to resist doing something - be it having sex or killing someone who makes you angry by walking on your front lawn - simply because there is a natural urge to do it.
Okay, I digressed for more than a moment. Sorry about that.
Anyway, they are acknowledged as sinners by many conservatives because they do something that God's law prohibits - like men who cheat on their wives with other women. But that doesn't mean they are discriminated against. I can't look at someone and tell if they are homo- or heterosexual. How am I going to discriminate against them? Unless you're saying that merely disagreeing with their lifestyle amounts to discriminating.
Just realized an error in my wording of the first paragraph. My apologies.
It should read:
You are inconsistent. On the one hand, while trying to use my Boston Marathon analogy, you say that there is a "good chance" that the Boston Marathon will be won by a black man. That would translate to saying that the study establishes that there is a "good chance" that men born to women who have previously given birth to male children will be homosexual. But what you actually go on to say is that they have an "increased chance" of being homosexual than the previous child. "Good chance" and "Increased chance" are two vastly different terms. Which did you mean to use?
Nine months? Wow! My guys were still using a bottle until around 12.
We're drifting, aren't we?
Anyway, enjoy the holiday.
12 months, that is.
Oh, and your attempt at relation vs. correlation aside, my point still stands.
I don't presume anything. I share with people what I believe the Supreme Law governing man says on the subject. I didn't make the rules, and I don't know that I would have made the rules what they are if I had the power to make, or change them. But they say what they say, whether I, or anyone else, like it or not.
What would be presumptuous would be for me to say such behavior is alright, based on my human reasoning, when what I believe to be a Higher Authority says it is not.
I don't know what people do in the privacy of their homes. But Someone Else does. I'll leave it to Him to deal with them in His own time if He desires. But I reserve the right to warn people of the dangers of certain choices, because I care for people. They obviously still reserve the right to ignore what I have to say (Ezekiel 33:1-6).
Of course, where this discussion is concerned, I didn't set out to discuss the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality per se. Merely the flawed logic that might lead some to conclude causality where there is merely correlation.
I set out to point out that the logic used in this particular article to establish that there is "evidence" of a biological link is flawed logic. Nothing more. I even noted in my original post that I have not read the study, and that the study itself may have details, not covered in the story, that might shed more light on the subject.
It is you who turned the discussion to one on homosexuality in general. In your very first post, you admitted to changing the subject.
Post a Comment
<< Home