3 ms·

>and even work against collection of, objective data The problem is that many times the data collected is not objective at all. Statistics can be twisted by e

>and even work against collection of, objective data The problem is that many times the data collected is not objective at all. Statistics can be twisted by even just the definitions of words used. For example, a CDC study on rape considered forced penetration, but not being forced to penetrate, as rape. This data was then used in a report that, among other conclusions, concluded that women almost never rape men. All the cases of women forcing a man to have sex were defined as not being rape, twisting the results of the study. When you see someone against data collection, are they against using good objective data, or do they have reason to believe the data won't be objective and manipulated to push one side or the other? All this being said, I think drugs like MDMA should be legal for recreational use, much less therapeutic use.

WhitneyLand 9y ago
>The problem is that many times the data collected is not objective at all I don’t think that has anything to do with it. If it were the case the demands would be for better data, not no data. And yes, some in Congress advocate against collecting data full stop on certain issues. I would agree it’s always been true thst data will sometimes be flawed and biased, and always will be. The question is what do you do about it? Stop science, or improve standards in good faith?
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  It depends upon what the options are. If you can demand and get good data, then people will ask for good data. If they don't think it is possible to get good data, then they may demand no data because no data is better than bad data. For an extreme example, consider a country where homosexuality is punished by long prison sentences (or worse). Would you trust any data that such a government produced? If they produced data showing something negative about homosexuality, would you even spend the time to look at their methodologies? Or would it be dismissed as inherently biased as the source would be seen as being incapable of being trusted? For me it would be the latter.

WhitneyLand 9y ago

>The problem is that many times the data collected is not objective at all I don’t think that has anything to do with it. If it were the case the demands would be for better data, not no data. And yes, some in Congress advocate against collecting data full stop on certain issues. I would agree it’s always been true thst data will sometimes be flawed and biased, and always will be. The question is what do you do about it? Stop science, or improve standards in good faith?

BearGoesChirp 9y ago
It depends upon what the options are. If you can demand and get good data, then people will ask for good data. If they don't think it is possible to get good data, then they may demand no data because no data is better than bad data. For an extreme example, consider a country where homosexuality is punished by long prison sentences (or worse). Would you trust any data that such a government produced? If they produced data showing something negative about homosexuality, would you even spend the time to look at their methodologies? Or would it be dismissed as inherently biased as the source would be seen as being incapable of being trusted? For me it would be the latter.