|
are you circumcised? (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
I believe your fault comes from your confusion of pure logic with modern scientific reasoning. By claiming that my sources are in fact using "faulty" "post hoc ergo propter hoc," logic, you are denying the clinical basis for medical discovery. If you take an isolated event and from its conclusion establish a mode of causality, I agree your assumption can be proven wrong logically using the falicy listed above. However, when you expand both your control group (in this case uncircumcised individuals, used both in the articles I linked to, as well as your first source) and your experimental subset (in our case circumcised individuals), you can draw inferences from the occurence of selected events. Furthermore, the use of a chi-squared test can be used, based on both your sample size and null hypothesis, to further show that your results are in fact non-trivial. If you are refuting this use of statistical analysis in medicine, you are proposing that virtually all research done by this method is invalid. Since resources are limited, you must realize that a test group can only be so big. You must also realize that the approach used by clinicians is to arbitrarily define one subset as "control," modify one variable and check for results.
If anything, I would call into contest your use of "argumentum ad numerum" or even "ad populum" as you state that a minority of western cultures still practicing routine circumcision is a valid point of argument. Surely you must realize your own mistake by putting this forth as a proving point for your stance.
I would also call into question many of the sources you listed. As many of these sites are more or less founded on the basis of portraying the "evils" of circumcision. It would be easy to allow bias to lead to selective summariztion of the works they cite. That is why I gave unsummarized sources (apart from the conclusions drawn by the researchers), along with all data backing these conclusions. When using web sites that have set out to propogate their own agenda as a means of proof, their ability to selectively choose which facts to present, in even a manner that appears objective, make me very weary in agreeing with their results.
In conclusion, by you saying that there is no causality in my sources calls into question the very scientific method used in today's medical clinical trials. As a side note, the first article you linked used the exact same subsets as the two articles I posted. Surely you must notice the hypocracy. If we are unable to take a set, divide it into subsets by changing one variable (in our case the foreskin) and look for differences in results, then drug trials and dietary studies must also be called into question. What I believe you are failing to take into consideration is the use of large sample sizes and chi-squared test to seperate "post hoc ergo propter hoc" from true causality. Lastly, your attempt at "argumentum ad hominem" by calling into question my objective reasoning abilities is both uncalled for and does nothing to further your case. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| STOP THE PENOR THREADSW PLEAse1!11!! |
|
|
| Electronicmaji |
| but what if God talks to you and your not schitzophrenic...Actaully a lot of people I know have talked to God and have passed tests to show there perfectly mentally sound.....Its not impossible...so dont try to dissaprove everything with talk of mental illness... |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I believe your fault comes from your confusion of pure logic with modern scientific reasoning. By claiming that my sources are in fact using "faulty" "post hoc ergo propter hoc," logic, you are denying the clinical basis for medical discovery.
|
If "modern scientific reasoning" is logically fallacious, then the conclusions of that reasoning cannot be accepted as true. The reality is that there is a large body of medical research which, due to this fact, is completely and totally worthless. It has not proven itself - and indeed is often marked by studies which purport to demonstrate contradictory results. Clearly, these methodologies are inherently flawed. If that is the "clinical basis for medical discovery," then you are quite right that I am denying it. It isn't a valid form of reasoning and it doesn't magically become a valid form of reasoning when you apply it to medicine.
| quote: |
If you take an isolated event and from its conclusion establish a mode of causality, I agree your assumption can be proven wrong logically using the falicy listed above. However, when you expand both your control group (in this case uncircumcised individuals, used both in the articles I linked to, as well as your first source) and your experimental subset (in our case circumcised individuals), you can draw inferences from the occurence of selected events.
Furthermore, the use of a chi-squared test can be used, based on both your sample size and null hypothesis, to further show that your results are in fact non-trivial. If you are refuting this use of statistical analysis in medicine, you are proposing that virtually all research done by this method is invalid. Since resources are limited, you must realize that a test group can only be so big. You must also realize that the approach used by clinicians is to arbitrarily define one subset as "control," modify one variable and check for results. |
If they did in fact modify one variable, then it would be perfectly acceptable. However, they did not control for innumerable other variables. With reference to the UTI studies, recall:
| quote: |
Confounding factors—for example, hygiene habits, outpatient treatment, modes of urine collection, socioeconomic status, race, prematurity, and perinatal health—were not taken into account. Any one of the confounding factors could explain the UTI-incidence difference—a difference of less than 1 percent—between circumcised and noncircumcised boys.
|
None of these variables was controlled for. Hence the scientific method was not followed, and hence the results are not scientifically valid. You can't violate the fundamental precepts of science and claim to have produced a scientifically valid conclusion. The explanation for these weak attempts was presented in another of the links I posted:
| quote: |
Maurer and Maurer explain why so much “nonsense” is published: (1) Experimental design and statistical analysis are not typically taught in medical school; and (2) medical schools discourage questioning of authorities.
Our science is affected by our cultural values. Circumcision reflects a cultural value, and a principal method for preserving cultural values is to disguise them as truths that are based on scientific research. This “research” can then be used to support medical practices. This explains the claimed medical “benefits” of circumcision.
Maurer, D. & Maurer, C., The World of the Newborn (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 240.
|
The scientific methods used were invalid. They are widely recognized as invalid. There are many other studies which are likewise invalid - but this does nothing to enhance the validity of the UTI studies.
| quote: | | If anything, I would call into contest your use of "argumentum ad numerum" or even "ad populum" as you state that a minority of western cultures still practicing routine circumcision is a valid point of argument. Surely you must realize your own mistake by putting this forth as a proving point for your stance. |
A weak straw man, if I've ever seen one.
The overwhelming perception of circumcision as a procedure with no benefits in western medicine bears specific relevance to your attempt at an appeal to authority here:
| quote: |
Until then, saying that they somehow contain "false research and outdated information" without a shred of proof comes down to your word versus theirs. I think I'm going to side with the PhD/MDs.
|
If PhD/MDs possess superior knowledge and reasoning regarding the procedure as you claim, then the widespread belief among PhD/MDs that the procedure possesses no benefits is directly relevant to the veracity of your claims.
| quote: | I would also call into question many of the sources you listed. As many of these sites are more or less founded on the basis of portraying the "evils" of circumcision. It would be easy to allow bias to lead to selective summariztion of the works they cite.
|
You're welcome to go to your public library and check out any of the sources cited to point out any inconsistencies which may exist. Otherwise, this tactic is a fallacious instance of poisoning the wells:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay...ments.html#well
| quote: |
That is why I gave unsummarized sources (apart from the conclusions drawn by the researchers), along with all data backing these conclusions. When using web sites that have set out to propogate their own agenda as a means of proof, their ability to selectively choose which facts to present, in even a manner that appears objective, make me very weary in agreeing with their results. |
It's interesting that you feel that way given that you aren't weary to agree with the results of studies which are demonstrably flawed in their methodology - a textbook example of the ostrich argument.
| quote: |
In conclusion, by you saying that there is no causality in my sources calls into question the very scientific method used in today's medical clinical trials.
|
The widespread nature of pseudoscience speaks not of the veracity of its claims.
| quote: | As a side note, the first article you linked used the exact same subsets as the two articles I posted. Surely you must notice the hypocracy.
|
Perhaps you didn't read it very closely. The comments given on the link were:
| quote: |
Of interest is that this study was done where the majority of boys are not circumcised during the newborn period. The results differ dramatically from the studies performed by Wiswell. The odds ratio is significantly lower than Wiswell's as are the rates of bacteremia. This study had twice the number of cases as Wiswell, but no cases of meningitis (Wiswell had two; Fischer's exact test p = 0.054). The reasons for these differences are easily explained. Wiswell looked at boys under one month of age. These boys had systemic infections acquired transplacentally which seeded the urinary tract. Because of the infection the boys were "too sick" to circumcise. One third of the intact boys in Wiswell's study population were intact for this reason.
Craig et al. did not find a statistically significant difference in the incidence of UTIs in boys under one year of age or in boys over one year of age. It is only when the numbers are combined that a statistically significant difference is found. When the numbers are combined, however, there is a statistically significant difference between cases and controls in regards to age. But as pointed out above, when controlled for age, there is no statistically significant difference. The numbers are too small to make any statistical claim. If only one more circumcised boy had a UTI, then combined result would not have been statistically significant.
More than a third of intact boys with UTIs had their urine collected without swabbing the urethra with disinfectant. The authors cite a study that swabbing did not affect the contamination rate. This cited study found no difference only because the size of the study was not big enough. The cited study found an asymptomatic rate of bacteriuria of 2%. These cases cleared without intervention.
|
The only conclusion drawn from the data is that it isn't sufficient to establish any relationship between circumcision and UTI. In order for it to be hypocrisy, they would have to be drawing a conclusion from the flawed data - not criticizing the flawed nature of the data.
| quote: |
If we are unable to take a set, divide it into subsets by changing one variable (in our case the foreskin) and look for differences in results, then drug trials and dietary studies must also be called into question. |
Many drug trials and dietary studies are clearly inherently flawed. Why do you think they so frequently espouse contradictory results? They certainly ought to be called into question. Also, I would question how frequently the division only affects the distribution of a single variable. If other variables are skewed by these divisions, then the studies do not conform to the scientific method.
| quote: | | What I believe you are failing to take into consideration is the use of large sample sizes and chi-squared test to seperate "post hoc ergo propter hoc" from true causality. |
These statistical methodologies are only useful in an experiment with a single variable. There is no evidence that the UTI studies made any attempt to control for a plethora of other variables. It is both highly possible and widely regarded as likely that incidental factors which were not even recorded accounted for the extremely small apparent difference between circumcised and uncircumcised individuals.
| quote: |
Lastly, your attempt at "argumentum ad hominem" by calling into question my objective reasoning abilities is both uncalled for and does nothing to further your case. |
Your conclusion does not follow from any reasonable premises. There are two possibilities. Either your reasoning is flawed, or you are lying. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Hey you guys, have some compassion for the victims eh? We get it, the alleged medical benefits haven't been proven. I never said I was going to have my future kids cut either, but it's kind of rough reading about how we've all been subjected to a "cruel, barbaric, and disgusting" procedure. :p Let's try to stay emotionally aloof on that issue alright...
Same with the guys posting in their sigs and in every single totally unrelated thread about how glad they are that they're uncut... you know what, we don't really care, I was cut when I was 10 days old so it's not like I made a conscious choice here. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Orbax |
| how many uncircumcised snow penises do you see? I think that should settle this once and for all. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Hey you guys, have some compassion for the victims eh? We get it, the alleged medical benefits haven't been proven. I never said I was going to have my future kids cut either, but it's kind of rough reading about how we've all been subjected to a "cruel, barbaric, and disgusting" procedure. :p Let's try to stay emotionally aloof on that issue alright...
Same with the guys posting in their sigs and in every single totally unrelated thread about how glad they are that they're uncut... you know what, we don't really care, I was cut when I was 10 days old so it's not like I made a conscious choice here. :rolleyes: |
I suppose you're right that using emotionally charged diction is probably inappropriate in this instance. I don't have anything against people who are circumcised - and anyone who feels the need to go around bragging about the fact that they weren't seems to have some issues to me.
I do have a very serious problem with this operation being perfomed on young children just because the parents think it ought to be done, and I do have a bit of a gripe with those who advocate the circumcision of others without providing valid and sufficient justification for such a procedure. |
|
|
| Electronicmaji |
| when some one is under 18 the person who makes medical decisions for them are the parents..unless its something that will serious hurt or cause malfunction outside of medical reasons like cutting of there arm.....circumsision still allows sexaul function and can have medical reasons for it be happenedso basically the parents are right in the eye of lthe law... |
|
|
| butterfly |
| quote: | Originally posted by Electronicmaji
when some one is under 18 the person who makes medical decisions for them are the parents..unless its something that will serious hurt or cause malfunction outside of medical reasons like cutting of there arm.....circumsision still allows sexaul function and can have medical reasons for it be happenedso basically the parents are right in the eye of lthe law... |
ok... so would you circumcise your kid? maybe you are the wrong TA to ask... |
|
|
| arctic |
Good post Arbiter.
| quote: | Originally posted by Electronicmaji
but what if God talks to you and your not schitzophrenic...Actaully a lot of people I know have talked to God and have passed tests to show there perfectly mentally sound.....Its not impossible...so dont try to dissaprove everything with talk of mental illness... |
Ever spoken to a psychologist? If not, it might be a good idea to make an appointment - pronto.  |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I am frankly shocked to hear your response Arbiter. How would you propose performing a clincial trial with all the inherent differences in humans? Unless we are to clone a large group of individuals and perform our tests on them, we will never fully meet the "one variable" testing method you prescribe. As I have argued before, as a test group becomes large enough, those statistical anomolies tend to become insignificant. I stated that with a small sample size you do run into the issue of other variables having an impact on results, however as you increase this size they no longer become an issue, if the trial is performed correctly. If your assumption is true, due to the natural phenotypic or at least genotypic differences in all humans, NO trial, testing or study on humans would ever fulfill your idea of good science, so why should any conclusions drawn from the myriad of these results ever be held as accurate? And for that matter, how can any testing performed on biological organisms ever be considered acurate, because they again vary genetically?
You seem to be disturbed by how clincial trials are performed on humans, because they violate your "one variable" policy. I ask you though, how could we ever truly test humans, while only changing one variable? The simple fact that you are performing a test on a different human changes an astounding amount of genetic variables. I wonder how you can prescribe to any scientific research or discovery if this is the case. As I have said before, clincials are based on sample size, and as you increase your sample size these other variables become insignificant. I hope that you truly do not wish to throw out all scientific discovery in health/medicine/animal biology because you do not agree with its logical, not scientific methodology. |
|
|
| Electronicmaji |
| um yes I have gone and I never had any problems I even went to one in the USA still no problems... |
|
|
|
|
