Sex Ed taught in Grade1 now!

[ToadBrother]

And by the way I don't think anything is wrong with anecdotal information, I certainly don't trust "studies" either as we've seen, time and again that there is often a political or financial agenda behind the statistics.

Statistics can be interpreted in many ways, while the study only attempts to portray the data in one way or another. I believe human beings before I believe some study backed by a large corporation

Human beings have agendas too. At least a study will be published with a methodology. What kind of methodology is "I went to high school and saw lots of pregnant people." Anecdotal evidence is pretty much worthless in science precisely because it lacks rigor. Humans lie all the time, intentionally or unintentionally. The whole reason statistical sciences, indeed all sciences were invented was because of the absolute lack of reliability of anecdotal accounts.

For instance, what would you take more seriously, some researcher saying "I swear I saw the Higgs Boson" or a researcher that comes with a complete analysis of a set of experiments with the full methodology? The first is an example of anecdotal evidence, it might even be true, but it's still useless from a rigorous epistemological point of view. The second is rigorous, and even if its false, you have some way of demonstrating that.

[ToadBrother]

I'm with Lukin and Muddy on this one, the school shouldn't be allowed to teach liberalist sex education as part of the standard curriculum.

Sex is now liberal?

Offer it as an optional course that parents and students can decide if they should attend.

It is. So far as I can tell, a parent or guardian can still opt their child out.

Problem is school teachers have too much power while they conduct the class and their personal values get pushed onto the kids, who don't necessarily know that the teachers conduct is inappropriate (as with the story about the Mike Harris hater), sometimes parents don't find out what's going on in the classroom. I don't want some liberal hedonist explaining oral and anal sex to my kids, particularly at such a young age.

I heard of a guy with conservative views that once raped a child. I guess we'd better keep children away from conservatives.

And it looks like you haven't read the curriculum either. I'm not surprised you accept anecdotal evidence. You seem to have no standards of evidence at all, or if you do, it's of a sort of intellectually masturbatory kind.

Edited April 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

And by the way I don't think anything is wrong with anecdotal information, I certainly don't trust "studies" either as we've seen, time and again that there is often a political or financial agenda behind the statistics. Statistics can be interpreted in many ways, while the study only attempts to portray the data in one way or another. I believe human beings before I believe some study backed by a large corporation

This makes no sense. A study uses stated methodology, and presumably the scientific method. To say that there is agenda behind the study may be true, but you can determine that for the most part by looking at the study itself.

Anecdotal information may be a catalyst for an investigation but it means nothing on its own.

[wyly]

Human beings have agendas too. At least a study will be published with a methodology. What kind of methodology is "I went to high school and saw lots of pregnant people." Anecdotal evidence is pretty much worthless in science precisely because it lacks rigor. Humans lie all the time, intentionally or unintentionally. The whole reason statistical sciences, indeed all sciences were invented was because of the absolute lack of reliability of anecdotal accounts.

when I was in high school pregnant teenage ladies just disappeared, that was the stigma of being pregnant it was kept out of sight and there would be an excuse of "gone to live with grandma for a year" or "transferred to another school"... I recall not long after I graduated I was surprised to discover there was a school just for pregnant teenagers (I worked there for a month)so that's where many went to continue their studies where I lived...I don't know if those preggo schools are still around but from the gossip I hear from my teenagers pregnant girls stay in their own schools now and it doesn't carries the stigma it once did... Edited April 23, 2010 by wyly

[lukin]

more BS, now you claim to promote research and yet do none yourself, where have you posted any countering stats or research supporting your POV? nowhere because there are none, why because you're wrong and you know it, the entire issue is clouded by your prejudices and personally uncomfortable with sex...

you're trying to convince us that official government stats are a "media conspiracy" to keep the other side silent?

and you're very good at condescending attitude I find it very pompous...

Here's some research for you. You'll probably discredit it because it doesn't agree with your slanted POV.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100326/OPINION/303260010/Julie-Hershey-Research-proves-that-abstinence-programs-work

[wyly]

And by the way I don't think anything is wrong with anecdotal information, I certainly don't trust "studies" either as we've seen, time and again that there is often a political or financial agenda behind the statistics. Statistics can be interpreted in many ways, while the study only attempts to portray the data in one way or another. I believe human beings before I believe some study backed by a large corporation

I linked to a study in Pub Med are you claiming Pub Med is a large corporation with a secret agenda?...Michael linked to Ontario ministry of education site are you claiming that is large corporation with secret agenda?...

and what has anyone opposed to an early start to sex education offered other than anecdotes and personal beliefs/prejudices? nothing...anecdotes and personal opinion have some value but you need to back them up with something solid occasionally...

[ToadBrother]

Here's some research for you. You'll probably discredit it because it doesn't agree with your slanted POV.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100326/OPINION/303260010/Julie-Hershey-Research-proves-that-abstinence-programs-work

For a non-biased appraisal of the research:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201171637.htm

It basically says abstinence-only education seems to have been applied to pre-teens. The researchers also appear to be a good deal more cautious than the individual who wrote the clearly slanted article you posted.

Edited April 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[wyly]

Here's some research for you. You'll probably discredit it because it doesn't agree with your slanted POV.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100326/OPINION/303260010/Julie-Hershey-Research-proves-that-abstinence-programs-work

wow impressive research from the same web site

Furthermore, the primary outcome of this abstinence program resulted in 15 percent fewer 12-year-olds abstaining from sex over two years. What Hershey did not mention was that 24 months into the study (at an average age of 14), 33 percent of the students in the abstinence program and 48 percent in the control group had engaged in sexual intercourse. And they weren’t educated about birth control or STI prevention. When nationally and in our own state, over half of all teens have had sex by age 17, is it acceptable to withhold education about contraception and STI prevention?

it didn't work abstinence programs don't work...

[lukin]

For a non-biased appraisal of the research:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201171637.htm

It basically says abstinence-only education seems to have been applied to pre-teens. The researchers also appear to be a good deal more cautious than the individual who wrote the clearly slanted article you posted.

Spin it any which way you can. Your disciples are riddled with metaphor.

[ToadBrother]

Spin it any which way you can. Your disciples are riddled with metaphor.

I always enjoy these sorts of empty retorts, but I've gotta ask. Do you think we're idiots? Do you think this sort of vacuous taunting bravado is sufficiently intimidating to stop us from pointing out obvious things like you didn't even bother looking at the study you cited (well, actually, you didn't cite anything, you found some woman who herself doesn't appear to have read any details of the study). The columnist didn't even really give a citation, but merely the names of the researchers.

By the way, what you did was spin, or rather the article you cited was spin. The actual researchers themselves had a much more grounded interpretation of what they were studying. We're not spinning, you are.

Edited April 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[lukin]

I always enjoy these sorts of empty retorts, but I've gotta ask. Do you think we're idiots? Do you think this sort of vacuous taunting bravado is sufficiently intimidating to stop us from pointing out obvious things like you didn't even bother looking at the study you cited (well, actually, you didn't cite anything, you found some woman who herself doesn't appear to have read any details of the study). The columnist didn't even really give a citation, but merely the names of the researchers.

By the way, what you did was spin, or rather the article you cited was spin. The actual researchers themselves had a much more grounded interpretation of what they were studying. We're not spinning, you are.

Are you telling me that kids who don't receive explicit sex-ed in schools are more prone to getting pregnant or a disease compared to those who know the inas and outs of anal and oral sex by age 12?

Do you think parents should be able to opt their children out of sex-ed?

[lukin]

wow impressive research from the same web site

it didn't work abstinence programs don't work...

Abstinence programs have worked for a lot of people. People who learn to abstain have nothing to worry about.

[ToadBrother]

Are you telling me that kids who don't receive explicit sex-ed in schools are more prone to getting pregnant or a disease compared to those who know the inas and outs of anal and oral sex by age 12?

That seems to be a distinct possibility.

Do you think parents should be able to opt their children out of sex-ed?

I have no objection to it. If you want to make-believe that your kids won't have sex because you kept them out of a sex ed class then be my guest.

[Michael Hardner]

Why would this happen ? At which school were you "at" ? When were you at it ? I'm so unconvinced of this that I want to look up the statistics.

I didn't get an answer from lukin on this one.

[wyly]

Spin it any which way you can. Your disciples are riddled with metaphor.

what doesn't work is your lack of data...despite an increase in abstinence programs and 1.3 billion in funding for them in 2006 USA teenage pregnancies went up to 71 per thousand, and a higher abortion rate of 19.3 per thousand(2006)...Canada with it's various sex-ed programs pregnancies down to 26.6 per thousand(2003), down to 13.8 abortions per thousand(2003)...Netherlands sex-ed from 1st grade, pregnancies 8.7 per thousand, abortions 4 per thousand...proof is in the data...

[wyly]

Are you telling me that kids who don't receive explicit sex-ed in schools are more prone to getting pregnant or a disease compared to those who know the inas and outs of anal and oral sex by age 12?

Do you think parents should be able to opt their children out of sex-ed?

yes as the data supports, the netherlands with a complete sex-ed program and a very liberal society, their teens begin having sex at a later age than ours do, with fewer pregnancies, abortions, and STD's...

[Sir Bandelot]

Human beings have agendas too. At least a study will be published with a methodology. What kind of methodology is "I went to high school and saw lots of pregnant people." Anecdotal evidence is pretty much worthless in science precisely because it lacks rigor. Humans lie all the time, intentionally or unintentionally. The whole reason statistical sciences, indeed all sciences were invented was because of the absolute lack of reliability of anecdotal accounts.

For instance, what would you take more seriously, some researcher saying "I swear I saw the Higgs Boson" or a researcher that comes with a complete analysis of a set of experiments with the full methodology? The first is an example of anecdotal evidence, it might even be true, but it's still useless from a rigorous epistemological point of view. The second is rigorous, and even if its false, you have some way of demonstrating that.

Clearly what you have written makes sense amongst honest people, but we live in an age of disinformation overload. Today all information must be held suspect, and usually requires an act of "faith" to be believed. It is sad that with so much information available to us today we face a serious problem of credibility. We cannot know whats real, and what is being "spoofed" without knowing more about it and investigating the source. And who has time for that

[Sir Bandelot]

Sex is now liberal?

"liberalist sex education"

A form of sexual education based on liberal values.

[Sir Bandelot]

This makes no sense. A study uses stated methodology, and presumably the scientific method. To say that there is agenda behind the study may be true, but you can determine that for the most part by looking at the study itself.

Anecdotal information may be a catalyst for an investigation but it means nothing on its own.

If only you knew what scientists are all about. Remember they are just human beings, competitive, arrogant, vain and seeking personal success. Your "faith" in them is misplaced.

[wyly]

I have no objection to it. If you want to make-believe that your kids won't have sex because you kept them out of a sex ed class then be my guest.

unless you were a geek it's likely you were having sex, and surprisingly some geeks had very active sex lives as well(I guess they weren't so geeky after all)...and sex-ed didn't exist in my day until grade 12 and then it just a strict biological instruction...

[Sir Bandelot]

I linked to a study in Pub Med are you claiming Pub Med is a large corporation with a secret agenda?...Michael linked to Ontario ministry of education site are you claiming that is large corporation with secret agenda?...

and what has anyone opposed to an early start to sex education offered other than anecdotes and personal beliefs/prejudices? nothing...anecdotes and personal opinion have some value but you need to back them up with something solid occasionally...

Of course the ministry has its agenda which must include political considerations. Every organization has an agenda to keep its face. A change of leadership, a change of government and you will see the political aspects of the agenda change.

I have worked for some very "reputeable" organizations, such as Cancer Care Ontario and two of the largest hospitals on University Avenue. I have seen some of the most respected people, Professors, Doctors all join in to support a lie when it is pronounced necessary by the chief executive. Anecdotal, I know. Give me the word of a single honest man, not drowned out by the din of a thousand lieing fools.

[ToadBrother]

Clearly what you have written makes sense amongst honest people, but we live in an age of disinformation overload. Today all information must be held suspect, and usually requires an act of "faith" to be believed. It is sad that with so much information available to us today we face a serious problem of credibility. We cannot know whats real, and what is being "spoofed" without knowing more about it and investigating the source. And who has time for that

I really have no idea why you think your objections are relevant. Let me repeat. Anecdotal evidence is so non-rigorous that it's all but useless. It might be a starting point (ie. I see more women with long hair than short hair, let's find out why), but it cannot be used to empirically state "more women have long hair than have short hair".

You seem to be insisting that studies show sex education doesn't in fact reduce STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and yet the best you can muster is some vague conspiracy theory about how maybe, somewhere, someone is lying. Maybe you should start by analyzing your own prejudices, rather than asserting that the researchers, or any researchers, must have their own.

Let's assume that the researchers are evil liberal hedonists who want 12 year olds to have oral and anal sex. We have two key points to analyze their studies:

1. Methodology - Any peer-reviewed study is going to have to provide the underlying methodology for the study - sample size, statistical methods, etc. This allows one to determine if the very foundation of the study makes any sense.

2. The results of the study - If you determine the methodology is sound, you can then make sure that the researchers themselves actually followed their own methodology. You can analyze the data and see if it in fact demonstrates the conclusion, or whether there is problematic logic.

Now unless you're going to outright assert the researchers essentially tainted or made up their raw data (a very serious charge in scientific circles, and one that can pretty much end a researcher's career), you should be able to assess the veracity of the study's conclusions. If a researcher did tamper with the data, even that can be determined by fairly careful analysis, and since generally isolated studies, even well done ones, aren't sufficient to demonstrate anything, you should be able to assess a study not only on its own internal merits, but based on how it measures up to other similar studies.

The whole point of scientific methodologies is to overcome not only unconscious prejudices (which we all have), but even outright dishonesty.

Now try to do any of that with anecdotal evidence. There's no methodology, there's no real way to determine the sample size (a single high school wouldn't pass muster by even the most liberal application of statistically meaningful sample sizes).

[Sir Bandelot]

No no, don't try to drag this into something else, as if I believe this or that. I said I don't believe the school teachers should teach anything unless it is strictly on academic matters. Anything that enters the realm of morality or ethics is not the curriculum for mandatory education in public school. I've said that already. No need for you to now expand on what I said to include whether an appropriate sex education reduces the spread of STD's. That's just cheap tactics to try to make me look foolish. We are talking about the validity of scientific evidence, which goes beyond the specific question of sex ed for 6 year olds and so is off topic.

->The whole point of scientific methodologies is to overcome not only unconscious prejudices (which we all have), but even outright dishonesty.

It would be, except for the unconscious (and sometimes not so unconscious) prejudices...

Who do you believe when bombarded with contrary but often apparently valid information. If the question is about sociology, ethics, morality you have to go with what you think is right. Thats personal choices. These matters come down to what individuals believe. I object to some opinionated school teacher going beyond the mandate of academic teaching, and I object to the ministry if they say that's how it should be done. It should be my right to teach them. It comes down to the power of the state vs the individuals.

[Michael Hardner]

Anecdotal, I know. Give me the word of a single honest man, not drowned out by the din of a thousand lieing fools.

That's different. It's not 'anecdotal' in terms of studying data, this is an example of wrongdoing, in which case a single validated instance warrants investigation.

If you know of these things, it's your duty to report them. If you don't have the stomach for it, most large organizations now have snitch lines to help you.

[wyly]

You seem to be insisting that studies show sex education doesn't in fact reduce STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and yet the best you can muster is some vague conspiracy theory about how maybe, somewhere, someone is lying. Maybe you should start by analyzing your own prejudices, rather than asserting that the researchers, or any researchers, must have their own.

it's seems to becoming a common theme, all science and research if it doesn't agree with one's preconceived ideas must be the result of some insidious conspiracy no explanation or counter evidence needed...it could but implying a highly respected Pub Med would knowingly accept tainted research is silly...