/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13418778

31KiB, 743x325, soyence.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Is science THAT biased?

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 09:36:08 2021 No.13418778 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13418784 >>13419786 >>13421794 >>13421830

> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/
Can someone explain picrelated to me?
The statement underline with red obviously contradicts the previously made statement, underlined with green. Is modern science so biased that it can simply ignore the results of research and draw a diametrically opposite conclusion?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 09:37:50 No.13418784 Report

Quoted By: >>13418800

>>13418778
LEARN
BAYES'
THEOREM

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 09:46:36 No.13418800 Report

Quoted By:

>>13418784
What Bayes theorem have to do with it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 12:40:48 No.13419295 Report

Quoted By: >>13419453

P(pedo | gay) != P(gay | pedo)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 13:49:55 No.13419453 Report

Quoted By: >>13419686

>>13419295
The green and red sentences are referring to the same part of Bayes theorem, idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:02:38 No.13419686 Report

Quoted By: >>13419708 >>13419782

>>13419453
No. The green sentence says that P(homosexual|true pedophile) = 1/12 and that P(true pedophile|homosexual) > P(true pedophile|heterosexual)

The red sentence says this doesn't indicate P(offend against children|homosexual) > P(offend against children|heterosexual).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:06:42 No.13419708 Report

Quoted By: >>13419760

>>13419686
Enhance your reading comprehension, pedo. The abstract states that their definition of pedophile is offend against children. So the two inequalities you've written are equivalent.
>Enhance your reading comprehension, pedo.
Actually, on second thought. Kys pedo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:09:49 No.13419731 Report

Quoted By: >>13419767

>11:1
Doesnt this mean that of 11 hetersexual pedophiles one follows that is homosexual?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:15:04 No.13419760 Report

Quoted By: >>13419775

>>13419708
>The abstract states that their definition of pedophile is offend against children.
No, it used phallometric testing to determine which offenders against children are true pedophiles. If every offender against children is a true pedophile then there is no reason for that test! You're the one lacking reading comprehension.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:16:58 No.13419767 Report

Quoted By: >>13419819

>>13419731
Yes. The other data is important too. They say the ratio of homosexual:heterosexual in the general population is 20:1, likewise the ratio of sex offenders against girls:boys is 2:1. These data suggest opposite to red, that fags are more likely to be pedophiles. This is a trivial calculation using Bayes theorem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:18:58 No.13419775 Report

Quoted By: >>13419854

>>13419760
>Your honor, he's not ACTUALLY a pedophile, he just had sex with multiple children!
No True Scotsman fallacy, and is the same retarded rhetoric sociologists use regarding "men who have sex with men" (they aren't GAY, you see, they just have sex with men!!)

And if you actually cared to open the study you'd see over 80% of the tested sample of sex offenders were "true pedophiles" anyway, so it's a moot point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:20:01 No.13419782 Report

Quoted By: >>13419788 >>13419794 >>13419795 >>13419796 >>13421715

>>13419686
>true pedophile

What is a FAKE pedophile???

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:21:07 No.13419786 Report

Quoted By:

>>13418778
>Can someone explain picrelated to me?
Being a pedophile does not always mean will rape children. It just means attraction.
Basically, it is saying
>"just because there are so many pedos among homos, that does not mean that they are more willing to rape a child."

>The statement underline with red obviously contradicts the previously made statement, underlined with green.
No, it does not. The above should have explained it.

>Is modern science so biased that it can simply ignore the results of research and draw a diametrically opposite conclusion?
No, it is not biased enough to simply ignore the results of research and draw a diametrically opposite conclusion. It is just covering their asses in case the other side thinks they are saying "homos are child raping pedo."
You can simply look for papers that detail the child rape percentages between those two and add it to your pile of evidence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:21:35 No.13419788 Report

Quoted By:

>>13419782
LARPers on /a/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:22:36 No.13419794 Report

Quoted By:

>>13419782
you are aware of false positives?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:23:13 No.13419795 Report

Quoted By: >>13421715

>>13419782
They assume not all sex offenders against children are pedophiles. So they deem TRUE pedophile as someone who had sex with a child who was also a pedophile. It's equivalent to saying that not all men who have sex with men are homosexual, so you can devise a TRUE homosexual metric. It's absolutely retarded and strikes me as pedocope. I've seen them argue that not all pedophiles are sex offenders, which I can reluctantly accept, but this is the first I've seen them arguing that not all sex offenders are pedophiles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:23:19 No.13419796 Report

Quoted By:

>>13419782
>What is a FAKE pedophile???
The college kid who had sex with a 17yo highschooler.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:25:29 No.13419802 Report

Quoted By:

The resulting realtive group prportion amongst homosexuals is greater than in heterosexuals. Its just relative group measure, not contradiction here

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:32:21 No.13419819 Report

Quoted By: >>13419882 >>13419888 >>13419899 >>13419913

>>13419767
Wrong, Bayes Theorem shows red is correct.
Let C = offend against children
Let A = androphilic
Let G = gynophilic

For the sake of the calculation we will assume female sex offenders are negligible and that P(A) = P(G) in the total population (not just sex offenders).

If P(C|A) > P(C|G) then

P(A|C) / P(A) > P(G|C) / P(G)
P(A|C) / P(G|C) > P(A) / P(G)

The first sentence tells us P(A|C) / P(G|C) = 1/2

1/2 > P(A) / P(G)
P(G) > 2 P(A)

But this is false according to P(A) = P(G)

Therefore P(C|A) > P(C|G) is false by contradiction

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:42:55 No.13419854 Report

Quoted By: >>13419891

>>13419775
>No True Scotsman fallacy
Weird how you were willing to argue by the definition of the paper when you misread it but now suddenly the definition in the paper is not good. Not all pedophile are sex offenders and not all sex offenders are pedophile. Similarly,
a homosexual is not someone who has sex with men, since homosexuals can be virgins. This doesn't seem controversial to me at all.

>And if you actually cared to open the study you'd see over 80% of the tested sample of sex offenders were "true pedophiles" anyway, so it's a moot point.
OK? I never argued to the contrary. You immediately started calling me a pedo when nothing I said supported pedos. Grow up and learn how to read.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:54:08 No.13419882 Report

Quoted By: >>13419894

>>13419819
>we will assume female sex offenders are negligible and that P(A) = P(G)
P(A) = P(G) does not follow from that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:55:09 No.13419888 Report

Quoted By: >>13419913 >>13419920

>>13419819
>P(A) = P(G)
Why would you assume that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:56:15 No.13419891 Report

Quoted By: >>13419899

>>13419854
>not all sex offenders are pedophile.
>This doesn't seem controversial to me at all.
Because you're a pedo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:57:00 No.13419894 Report

Quoted By:

>>13419882
I didn't say it did. Those are two separate assumptions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 15:59:17 No.13419899 Report

Quoted By: >>13419907 >>13419913

>>13419891
>>not all sex offenders are pedophile.
Yeah, if you rape an 80 year old, that doesn't mean you're a pedophile. How is this even an argument?

>Because you're a pedo.
Wrong.

The definition of pedophile is not even relevant to the red sentence. See >>13419819

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:02:08 No.13419907 Report

Quoted By: >>13419942

>>13419899
>Yeah, if you rape an 80 year old, that doesn't mean you're a pedophile. How is this even an argument?
Holy shit, you're incapable of reading. The study in OP only assessed sex offenders who had sex with children under the age of 11. When the authors claimed not all sex offenders were pedophiles, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT ONLY SEX OFFENDERS WHO OFFENDED CHILDREN

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:03:15 No.13419913 Report

Quoted By: >>13419946

>>13419899
>See >>13419819
Ok, maybe you can answer this.
>>13419888
>P(A) = P(G)
Why would you assume that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:04:42 No.13419920 Report

Quoted By: >>13419945 >>13419946

>>13419888
Because females and males are almost exactly in equal proportion and the vast majority are heterosexual. Even if lesbians and gay men are not in balance, it still has a negligible effect on the ratio of A to G.

In order for androphiles to have a greater propensity to offend children, gynophiles would have to outnumber androphiles 2 to 1 in the total population. This is obviously not true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:11:09 No.13419942 Report

Quoted By: >>13419952

>>13419907
>Holy shit, you're incapable of reading.
You're projecting again. You failed to read the sentence you quoted:
>not all sex offenders are pedophile.
There are sex offenders which are not pedophiles. Are you seriously going to argue against this???

>The study in OP only assessed sex offenders who had sex with children under the age of 11.
OK, and? I simply explained to you that not all pedophiles are sex offenders and not all sex offenders are pedophiles. I was not talking about 11 year olds.

>When the authors claimed not all sex offenders were pedophiles
The authors specifically said they tested sex offenders against children. They don't define "sex offenders" as sex offenders against children.

You have a real issue with the English language. You're sperging out over nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:12:06 No.13419945 Report

Quoted By: >>13419959

>>13419920
>Because females and males are almost exactly in equal proportion and the vast majority are heterosexual.
And how does that justify the assumption that P(A) = P(G)? If anything, it justifies the assumption that P(G) > P(A).
>gynophiles would have to outnumber androphiles 2 to 1 in the total population. This is obviously not true.
What are you talking about? By your own reasoning it's perfectly reasonable to conclude P(G) > P(A).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:12:10 No.13419946 Report

Quoted By:

>>13419913
See >>13419920

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:13:15 No.13419952 Report

Quoted By: >>13419972

>>13419942
>I was not talking about 11 year olds.
The OP's article and I were, retard. Do you know what context is? Obviously sex offender in this thread isn't talking about people who have sex with grandma.
>They don't define "sex offenders" as sex offenders against children.
Yes they do you fucking retard, it's called context.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:15:02 No.13419959 Report

Quoted By: >>13419979

>>13419945
Do you understand what androphilic and gynophilic means? Heterosexual females are androphilic. Heterosexual males are gynophilic.

I don't even need to assume they are exactly equal. As long as gynophiles don't massively outnumber androphiles, androphilic men do not have a higher propensity to offend against children.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Girls.png, 490KiB, 449x401

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:18:23 No.13419972 Report

Quoted By:

>>13419952
>The OP's article and I were, retard.
I understand. This doesn't make sex offenders = sex offenders against 11 year olds.

>Obviously sex offender in this thread isn't talking about people who have sex with grandma.
So having sex with grandma is not a sex offense? OK, grannyfucker.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:20:13 No.13419979 Report

Quoted By: >>13420005

>>13419959
>Do you understand what androphilic and gynophilic means?
Do you? They're explicitly defined as heterosexual adults who are not attracted to children. This invalidates your entire calculation.
Source: the literal paper we're arguing over.
>As part of an ongoing investigation of potential epidemiological connections between gynephilia (an erotic preference for physically mature females), androphilia (an erotic preference for physically mature males),

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:25:30 No.13420005 Report

Quoted By: >>13420021

>>13419979
>They're explicitly defined as heterosexual adults who are not attracted to children.
Yes, and?

This invalidates your entire calculation.
How?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:30:21 No.13420021 Report

Quoted By: >>13420024

>>13420005
>This invalidates your entire calculation.
Seriously?
>Let C = offend against children
>Let A = androphilic
>Let G = gynophilic
>The first sentence tells us P(A|C) / P(G|C) = 1/2
The first sentence being the green sentence right? Well, reread that sentence then.
>This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.
A and G, per definition, aren't pedophiles, idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:31:57 No.13420024 Report

Quoted By: >>13420046

>>13420021
>The first sentence being the green sentence right?
No, the first sentence in the abstract.

>idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:37:31 No.13420046 Report

Quoted By: >>13420052

>>13420024
>No, the first sentence in the abstract.
Okay.
>Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1
And you claim
>The first sentence tells us P(A|C) / P(G|C) = 1/2
Where do you get off on assuming all these sex offenders aren't pedophiles? Your formula basically claims the rate of true pedophilia, per the authors paper, is zero. That's false. Rephrased: according to the paper, about 90-95% of the sex offenders were actually pedophiles (and therefore neither A nor G).
>Our clinical estimate was that 90% of these offenders against female children and 95% of these offenders against male children were true pedophiles
Hence, you need to modify P(A|C) and P(G|C).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:40:41 No.13420052 Report

Quoted By: >>13420081

>>13420046
>Where do you get off on assuming all these sex offenders aren't pedophiles?
I didn't. Learn how to read.

>Your formula basically claims the rate of true pedophilia, per the authors paper, is zero.
No it doesn't. Learn how to read.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 16:51:17 No.13420081 Report

Quoted By: >>13420136

>>13420052
>No it doesn't.
Yes it does. I've provided all the quotations.
>Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1
This is not the same thing as P(A|C) / P(G|C) = 1/2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 17:12:25 No.13420136 Report

Quoted By: >>13420182

>>13420081
I didn't say it's the "same thing" I said it tells us P(A|C) / P(G|C) = 1/2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 17:26:26 No.13420182 Report

Quoted By: >>13420639

>>13420136
>>13420136
>I didn't say it's the "same thing" I said it tells us P(A|C) / P(G|C) = 1/2.
Then explain how it tells you that.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO rZEgzgVm.png, 407KiB, 812x666

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 17:29:40 No.13420195 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Jul 2021 19:40:34 No.13420639 Report

Quoted By:

>>13420182
I'll try to explain in a different way since you're not getting it. Assuming androphiles and gynophiles are about equal in the total population, the propensity of androphilic males to offend against children is greater only if the amount of androphilic child sex offenders is greater than gynophilic child sex offenders. The result that there are 11 times more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual pedophiles in the child sex offenders population doesn't imply anything about the ratio of androphiles to gynophiles, so the abstract is correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Jul 2021 01:37:08 No.13421715 Report

Quoted By:

>>13419782
A fake pedophile is a guy that fucks a child just because "a hole is a hole". They are also called situational pedophiles if I am not mistaken and aren't primarily attracted to children.
A true pedophile would be someone that is actually attracted to children and would fuck them even if there was an adult that they could fuck as easily I believe.

>>13419795
Also, not all men that fuck men are homosexual. There is such a thing as gay for pay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Jul 2021 02:08:01 No.13421794 Report

Quoted By:

>>13418778
its basically saying that raping children doesn't make you a pedophile.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Jul 2021 02:19:11 No.13421830 Report

Quoted By:

>>13418778
>pic related
>science
shiggy my diggy

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches