At 10/30/09 01:04 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:
At 10/30/09 12:44 PM, GuntherHermann wrote:
You can have all the documentation in the world, but if the scientific experiments have been committed by biased people no blind or double blind tests in the world can save it from a peer review.
If you're trying to be biased, the best way is to omit everything that doesn't agree with your view and pump up everything that does. Considering that Morris has a fair bit of research papers to his name, I'm sure he would have been called out, which he has on a moral level, not scientific.
Bias works on several levels, that's why you have blind tests and double blind tests. Bias can be exclusion of results on a conscious level, but in research it's more commonly related to inclusion/exclusion via placebo because of subconscious bias.
And a site which focuses entirely on one subject doesn't have any integrity at risk when passing its articles off as facts. You had it linked from an Islam site at first, which might have some more integrity, but nothing near that of a source which has integrity in multiple fields at stake, such as a news outlet or a mag.
No, but the man and his team, and the university they are affiliated with does.
Unless the site is owned by the university I wouldn't think it would harm its integrity much, but that depends on the audience, of course.
You can't say it's strictly scientific and medicine related then to say it has corporate motives in the next sentence, either. Don't even joke about that. And why would you doubt the alleged Dr. Brian J. Morris is a Muslim unless you know him personally?
Brian J. Morris isn't typically a name associated with Islam, and he hasn't blown himself up. I was going out on a limb, pardon me for speculating on something trivial.
Personal views aren't trivial in research. They are the very foundation subconscious bias. Either way I never said the guy was a muslim or not, I was just curious when you said you doubted it, I don't think it would have made much of a difference on his credibility after he didn't have any affiliation with the first site you posted after all.
As far as the corporate motives go, bottom line is money, and there isn't much profit in dead people. My assumption of big business is that they want to keep people alive as long as possible so they can take more of their money.
People dying from not being circumcised doesn't warrant supporting a politic to increase the amount of people being circumcised since the amount of people dying from it is so minuscule and it wouldn't benefit any industry in particular, thus negating any possible profit from investing in it. It's a corporate motive for those who sell the procedures, namely clinics, state owned and private ones alike.
Toenails for instance are a remnant of when our feet were hands and they serve no practical purpose. Why not just remove them with root and everything at birth? It would save you cutting toenails for your entire life and you would never risk having an ingrown toenail.
Because there is billions to be made from toenails, and the benefits of removing them don't vastly outweigh the long term benefits of keeping them. Unlike getting circumcised.
Again corporate benefits. There is revenue in treating sick people, too. If hospitals earned more from treating people who were sick due to not being circumcised than they earned money from selling the circumcision procedure then they wouldn't have recommended it. It's the capitalist trap, there are no morals in business.
Toenails don't have any benefits, they are completely redundant, which by default makes the benefits of removing them vastly greater both short term and long term, which makes the only reason there isn't a politic to get them removed because the state earns more money from people buying products related to them, like you said yourself. People don't remove body parts for the sake of prevention by principle, but because of an aggressive politic which fronts it. If the state cared about public health over money it would have outlawed tobacco along with pot. You said it yourself, bottom line is the money.
