N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 07 2015,23:46) | And how about this one? N.Wells?
| Quote | Zietsch & Santtila’s study is not evidence against the by-product theory of female orgasm
Kim Wallen, P. Z. Myers, Elisabeth A. Lloyd
The adaptive significance of women’s orgasm remains a topic of debate, with little agreement on a specific adaptation and the preponderance of evidence consistent with women’s orgasm being a by-product of strong selection on orgasm in men. Zietsch & Santtila (2011) entered into this debate by investigating the intersexual phenotypic correlation between measures of orgasmic function in monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) opposite-sexed twins in an attempt to provide evidence of whether orgasm in women is an evolutionary adaptation or a by-product of strong selection on male orgasm with its accompanying ejaculation. Zietsch & Santtila (2011) reported significant within-sex correlations among both MZ and same-sex DZ twins in orgasmic function, but not among opposite-sex DZ twins. They interpreted this lack of significant correlations in opposite-sexed DZ twins as evidence against the by-product explanation of women’s orgasm, arguing that strong selection on male orgasmic function should have resulted in a correlated expression of orgasm in their twin sisters. We find this is a misinterpretation of their data and present three arguments that invalidate their conclusion and analysis.
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...._orgasm
|
|
What about it?
Both it and the Zeitsch and Santtila paper it critiques are doing standard science, worrying about operational definitions and metrics (the first paper appears to have made a serious mistake there) and both are concerned with setting up and testing testable and logically valid predictions involving different outcomes stemming from alternative views of how something works and working up valid interpretations of the results (the first paper seems to have made some mistakes in interpreting their results, if the second paper is correct in its criticisms). Both papers are clearly written, both appear to do a good job of summarizing previous relevant research (this is not my area of expertise, so I'm just going by appearances here) and both lay out clearly relevant arguments. The paper you cite sees some problems in what the first paper did and in how they interpreted their results, so they wrote a critique. The first paper presents some actual relevant data - evidence that gives every appearance of being interesting and being worthy of closer evaluation, so the second paper did just that. That's all standard science in action. Your stuff does not rise to that level. Zeitsch and Santelli may have been wrong in some important points, but you are in the realm of "not even wrong", which is why your ideas garner nothing but ridicule and distain.
You haven't even reached first base. Your stuff is not clearly and carefully presented. It's not published. You don't even attempt to set up operational definitions or do any check on correspondence with reality, so there is nothing of any demonstrable worth. You don't set and test any logically entailed hypotheses.
American "American football" teams do not get to compete in the World Cup just because they also call their game "football", and they do not get to gripe about being excluded or losing because everybody else doesn't play by their new rules for "football". If they want to play in the World Cup, they have to develop the expertise, learn the rules, and play by them. With respect to international Association Football, "American Football" falls into the category of "not even wrong" and simply "irrelevant", which is about where you are in relation to science. When the US plays its own sport by its own rules (switching to a baseball analogy here), it really shouldn't get to call its playoffs "the World Series", but if it does, it really has no grounds for getting upset when the rest of the world laughs at the presumption and fails to care about the results. You aren't doing anything that intersects with the reality of science.
|
