Re the imputing of motivations in relation to Jim Guinee's citing the newspaper report on abortion and health, including of the study team, no one seems to have thought it worth noting the views of the person described as the team leader in the report:
"Professor Fergusson, who supports unrestricted access to abortion and describes himself as 'an atheist, a rationalist and pro-choice'... 'There'll be cheering for our results on the pro-life side and denouncing us angrily on the pro-choice side,' said Professor Fergusson, a psychologist and epidemiologist at the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences. 'Neither of those positions is sound'." http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/abortion-linked-to-mental-problems/2006/01/02/1136050394322.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 It seems evident from the response to Jim's posting that the study is flawed and its conclusions unacceptable. (Even if that had not been the case, one study doesnt make a summer anyway. -:) ) But I do think some TIPSters have been a bit hard on Jim. Very few of us (if any) don't have views about certain topics that predispose us to look especially hard for flaws in studies that seem to provide support for opponents of our position, and perhaps be a little less persistent in seeking out flaws in studies which provide support for it. Let me be the first to own up to such a weakness. (Recognizing it in oneself is a first step though by no means an antidote in itself to consciously trying to offset the imbalance.) On 11 June Aubyn Fulton wrote > I believe a fair reading of his cryptic introduction might suggest > to some that he thinks the study in question is well done, and that > students who reject its conclusions based on their perception of > methodological flaws are just biased. Aubyn then goes on to say: > OTOH, in the context of my campus (a conservative Christian one) > I would expect many students to "overlook methodological problems" > in the study precisely because they agree with its conclusions, and > the study would then provide me with a good opportunity to point out > both the flaws and their relevance and importance. It seems to me that another "reading" of Jim's original posting is that he is suggesting the same thing. But we can all "read" the posting one way or another according to our predispositions. Or maybe just take it as it is and make comments on the report, and/or provide follow-up examinations of the study and related material (as TIPSters indeed have done). That would suffice to counter any perceived agenda behind Jim's posting. I don't recall similar postings from other TIPSters (many of whom have just as strong views on some topics as Jim presumably does on this one) being subjected to motivational analysis in the way that his has. Even if it is the case that there is an agenda underlying his posting (i.e., a viewpoint about which he feels strongly), could he really be the only one to have cited an article (or research study) in this frame of mind? Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org/ --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
