Papal Visit to Ireland

[easytiger95]

Data is not always empirical, if its not collected empirically

Yes, epic bantz. Could you describe how data can be collected non-empirically? I'm not even going to bother quoting your understanding of maths. Or mis-understanding of it. They must be very patient math graduates you hang out with.

But to say that you are opposed to dogma makes no sense. If you are opposed to religious dogma that's fine,but the society will live in is based on dogma. Maths for example is dogma, law is dogma, in fact, when I think about it, and this should really get you going, "everything non empirical is based on dogma".

Dogma is a set of principles set down by a higher authority as incontrovertibly true. I certainly wouldn't put myself in any kind of bracket with these examples, but people who would have questioned dogma as incontrovertibly true would include Gallileo, Socrates, Mozart, John Lennon, Macchiavelli, Einstein, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Da Vinci... do I need to go on or have you put down your pitchfork and your flaming torch yet?

And by the way, maths and law are the opposite of dogma as their development and evolution have often come in direct opposition to accepted truth ie the use of applied maths in quantum physics or Magna Carta vs the Divine right of kings.

My original point was that abstinence only education does not prevent HIV spread, and it does not matter to me who propagates this lie. Now here are two pieces of journalism that refer to research done on the subject. The first is from the New York Times this year and details reactions to a study that proved that US government support for abstinence only programmes in Africa had no effect.

The second two links refer to a report in "The Lancet" accusing Pope Bendict of lying about the effectiveness of condoms against the spread of AIDS. These are fairly unimpeachable sources. It took me literally less than 30 seconds to find them. Which makes me think for all your talk about open minds, you've confused "open" and "empty". And I'm not a whole squadron.

Linking to sources from Catholic websites undermines your argument completely, as anyone with any intelligence would realise. Admitting your sources' bias does not excuse your sources' bias.

I am not even sure there is a debate, only trying to establish facts, which you are trying to distract from by claiming that everything I say is rubbish. The very fact that you have the notion that this is a debate is worrying as it would indicate that you have dogmatically* chosen your side and are going about this whole thing to prove your point and attempt to smear and denigrate anything that opposed your position. An open mind is a wonderful thing.

And an empty one is a terrible thing. I don't object to people of faith - what I object to is anti-intellectualism and the distortion of facts, both of which, I think even the most impartial reader, would admit you've been guilty of during the past few pages.

That's not banter, it's just facts. Links below

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/27/pope-aids-hiv-lancet

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/health/american-hiv-battle-in-africa-said-to-falter.html?_r=0

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(09)70185-9/fulltext?_eventId=login

[eddie d]

Could someone direct me to the Papal's visit to Ireland thread? I seem to have stumbled into the durex thread

[omaghjoe]

Where do you this from that I am distorting facts? ? Is it regarding manipulategate? (thats got a nice ring to it what?)
Cos if it is I can quite easily give you a break down of that whole sequence of events, but sure its there in Black and White where you scoffed and sneered at every one of my responses until you had nothing left.

Ironically by doing this it is you who is distorting the facts. But it is nothing more than an attempt to play to the gallery as you have shamelessly done in nearly every post. Its not surprising that you need vindication from other posters for your debate as you see this as a contest. Is that why you are posting, Or is it simply to porn scorn on anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest, which I am not even fully sure if I have. And BTW highlighting your incessant belittling tirade ain't playing the victim, its pointing out the facts. I could go through and highlight everytime you done it but sure you know yourself.

But the clinker of the lot must be your comments about critical thought, completely unfounded but sure they work well as a smoke screen to your own stubbornness.

Anyway for what its worth Empirical v Stat Evidence I would point to something like smoking causing and cancer. No direct link but alot of overwhelming statistical evidence. Just because there its not empirical evidence does not make the other evidence invalid, so you can down from your high horse now. Hopefully you've learned something.

The use of applied maths in quantum physics is no more relevant than the use of applied maths in baking a cake in terms of the origin of maths, ie both are irrelevant to its roots. I've had this discussion many times with Math graduates. Maths is the epitome of dogma. When you get down into it apparently all maths can be proven with the acceptance of the dogma of a point on a line, everything can be built from that position. But for the everyday user of maths, like you and me, there is no need to go to that depth, you simply accept the dogma of numbers. In fact it would appear that you have accepted it so well, you actually think they are real! .

Legal laws maybe not as good of an example as maths as their dogma are generally based on morals which in theory are changeable, but once they change, again the whole deck of cards comes down. A good example is the French republics, they're on their fifth, their ideals changed so therefore they deemed that everything was written by the support of this had to go to. Although what maintained the sovereign state is the dogma of nationalism, which held fast through the whole thing.

I dont even think your in the squadron BTW, do you really think GAA board matters that much? Those chaps opposed you listed opposed specific dogma and proved it wrong, but you oppose all apparently? Anyway to even enter into this discussion with the thought that this is a debate means you have a stubborn set position and are being dogmatic in the extreme, so coupled with your defence of maths it is quite clear that even tho you oppose dogma your clearly adhering to it pretty well.

Your links are interesting however not really relevant to the Catholic rate of AIDS in Africa.

First one is an opinion piece about the previous Pope's seriously suspect comments about condoms, which is not what the discussion is about.. its about Catholic church's message not preventing sexually transmitted diseases in Africa. And I am well sure you know there are more than a few high profile opinions floating around about the Pope and abstinence.
http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/92702/
Do you ignore what this guy says or have you considered it and dismissed it because it is contrary to what you believe to be true?

2nd one is relevant to the American government and AIDS and shows that their methods ABC dont work any better than anything else.

3rd one might be relevant if I didnt have to bloody well pay to see it... if you have access, post it up or send me an IM (it its copyright afterall, and people know who you are*)

If you refuse to even entertain anything that would support the Catholic Church, even stats that no one else it would appear has opposed, you are completely biased and closed minded. If you can find something specifically those opposes the previous stats about Catholics HIV/AIDS rate, I am open to it.

I have looked at alot of articles on this and there appears to be no clear concise pattern to any of the approaches to tackling AIDS. Condom distribution and marketing has been linked to increased rates but also now thankfully to the decrease in South Africa, although there are other factors to, such as new drugs that prevent the disease crossing the placenta, which may contributed to this. Uganda's success was linked to abstinence, although it has unfortunately risen in recent years, but nowhere near SA's level. I believe that education is still key. If people fully understand what is going on they will take the best preventive steps for themselves.

[bennydorano]

Sounds like you're objecting to easytiger highlighting & then dismantling your 'arguments' one by one. Wild unfair alrite.

[easytiger95]

Where do you this from that I am distorting facts? ? Is it regarding manipulategate? (thats got a nice ring to it what?)
Cos if it is I can quite easily give you a break down of that whole sequence of events, but sure its there in Black and White where you scoffed and sneered at every one of my responses until you had nothing left.

Ironically by doing this it is you who is distorting the facts. But it is nothing more than an attempt to play to the gallery as you have shamelessly done in nearly every post. Its not surprising that you need vindication from other posters for your debate as you see this as a contest. Is that why you are posting, Or is it simply to porn scorn on anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest, which I am not even fully sure if I have. And BTW highlighting your incessant belittling tirade ain't playing the victim, its pointing out the facts. I could go through and highlight everytime you done it but sure you know yourself.

But the clinker of the lot must be your comments about critical thought, completely unfounded but sure they work well as a smoke screen to your own stubbornness.

Anyway for what its worth Empirical v Stat Evidence I would point to something like smoking causing and cancer. No direct link but alot of overwhelming statistical evidence. Just because there its not empirical evidence does not make the other evidence invalid, so you can down from your high horse now. Hopefully you've learned something.

The use of applied maths in quantum physics is no more relevant than the use of applied maths in baking a cake in terms of the origin of maths, ie both are irrelevant to its roots. I've had this discussion many times with Math graduates. Maths is the epitome of dogma. When you get down into it apparently all maths can be proven with the acceptance of the dogma of a point on a line, everything can be built from that position. But for the everyday user of maths, like you and me, there is no need to go to that depth, you simply accept the dogma of numbers. In fact it would appear that you have accepted it so well, you actually think they are real! .

Legal laws maybe not as good of an example as maths as their dogma are generally based on morals which in theory are changeable, but once they change, again the whole deck of cards comes down. A good example is the French republics, they're on their fifth, their ideals changed so therefore they deemed that everything was written by the support of this had to go to. Although what maintained the sovereign state is the dogma of nationalism, which held fast through the whole thing.

I dont even think your in the squadron BTW, do you really think GAA board matters that much? Those chaps opposed you listed opposed specific dogma and proved it wrong, but you oppose all apparently? Anyway to even enter into this discussion with the thought that this is a debate means you have a stubborn set position and are being dogmatic in the extreme, so coupled with your defence of maths it is quite clear that even tho you oppose dogma your clearly adhering to it pretty well.

Your links are interesting however not really relevant to the Catholic rate of AIDS in Africa.

First one is an opinion piece about the previous Pope's seriously suspect comments about condoms, which is not what the discussion is about.. its about Catholic church's message not preventing sexually transmitted diseases in Africa. And I am well sure you know there are more than a few high profile opinions floating around about the Pope and abstinence.
http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/92702/
Do you ignore what this guy says or have you considered it and dismissed it because it is contrary to what you believe to be true?

2nd one is relevant to the American government and AIDS and shows that their methods ABC dont work any better than anything else.

3rd one might be relevant if I didnt have to bloody well pay to see it... if you have access, post it up or send me an IM (it its copyright afterall, and people know who you are*)

If you refuse to even entertain anything that would support the Catholic Church, even stats that no one else it would appear has opposed, you are completely biased and closed minded. If you can find something specifically those opposes the previous stats about Catholics HIV/AIDS rate, I am open to it.

I have looked at alot of articles on this and there appears to be no clear concise pattern to any of the approaches to tackling AIDS. Condom distribution and marketing has been linked to increased rates but also now thankfully to the decrease in South Africa, although there are other factors to, such as new drugs that prevent the disease crossing the placenta, which may contributed to this. Uganda's success was linked to abstinence, although it has unfortunately risen in recent years, but nowhere near SA's level. I believe that education is still key. If people fully understand what is going on they will take the best preventive steps for themselves.

Just noticed this response now, and I;'m not even going to bother to go through the all the bad grammar, flawed thought processes etc but I will highlight one point above - I never posted about Empirical evidence v Stat evidence - statistical evidence is empirical evidence, because statistics are gathered through a process of observation (i.e. at the most basic level counting). So in your example of lung cancer, those that are suffering are asked if they smoked - the numbers of those who reply yes are counted and then that statistic is analysed as to whether it is relevant to whether there is a connection between smoking and lung cancer. All levels of that process (despite the lack of direct medical evidence at the time) is conducted by observation and as I posted a week ago Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method. I hope you've learnt something, but judging by the way you continually refuse to accept this point and your befuddled musings in the rest of your post, I doubt it. Where's my high horse again?

[Rois]

Or is it simply to porn scorn on anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest, which I am not even fully sure if I have.

I did chuckle at this ... Sorry Omaghjoe!

[omaghjoe]

Just noticed this response now, and I;'m not even going to bother to go through the all the bad grammar, flawed thought processes etc but I will highlight one point above - I never posted about Empirical evidence v Stat evidence - statistical evidence is empirical evidence, because statistics are gathered through a process of observation (i.e. at the most basic level counting). So in your example of lung cancer, those that are suffering are asked if they smoked - the numbers of those who reply yes are counted and then that statistic is analysed as to whether it is relevant to whether there is a connection between smoking and lung cancer. All levels of that process (despite the lack of direct medical evidence at the time) is conducted by observation and as I posted a week ago Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method. I hope you've learnt something, but judging by the way you continually refuse to accept this point and your befuddled musings in the rest of your post, I doubt it. Where's my high horse again?

Your right about one thing Tiger my grammar is shockin, so you will have to forgive me for that and try to bear with me, it also might be hindering my explanations, so I apologise for that. But I would be interested to know what was flawed in my thought process, but I suspect you are taking my leave from my musings.

I think we have finally come to the crux of the issue and now see why there is confusion. The data collected is empirical as you say, but it is not empirical evidence to what the study is discussing through the stats. So first lets take the "Smoking causes cancer" scenario which you expanded upon.
The empirical evidence is only that a patient has cancer, and that a patient smokes. The number of these people that have cancer and used to smoke is the statistical evidence used to make a link between smoking and cancer. However there is no actual empirical evidence that smoking causes cancer. Do you get what I am saying? (Please say no, or inquire if unclear, I dont want to continue pointless mud slinging)

Similarly your studies are only empirical evidence that someone had a certain type of sex education and whether they adhered to the advice it gave or not. The statistical evidence would try and draw links between the two. Now although these studies, the second one in particular appeared to have a very good methodology etc by taking alot of factors into account, rely on human choice and resultant action. So they could only be said to be truely empirical evidence for the group studied. It could not be used as empirical evidence that the result will be repeated on another group, we have only statistics to indicate that it would.

Whats more, you used it to support the following statement.

All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.

The most glaring problem with backing up that statement with those studies, is that they are irrelevant to Catholic teaching as they did not explicitly study Catholics in Africa or the West. You could use these studies to theorise that Catholic teaching is similar to what these studies were examining, and therefore there is a good chance they will be repeated. However you said that "Empirical Evidence... points to the fact that...". To me that's completely explicit, if its not fine, let me know.

There is also other statistical evidence that opposes what you said, and there would appear to be nothing to back up the above statement regarding AIDS and Africa's Catholics (which is what is under discussion), not statistically and certainly not empirically.

Also I would like to add that I am not trying to disagree with your statement to insult you, I am trying to be objective, it aint personal. I would have thought the premise of what you are saying to be likely, but it appears not to be, it also could change to be true in the future but for the present it aint.

[omaghjoe]

Or is it simply to porn scorn on anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest, which I am not even fully sure if I have.

I did chuckle at this ... Sorry Omaghjoe!

Go to f**k Rois


You musta heard of manipulating Data Rois wha?

What about the Maths? I am sure you got into all that dot and line crap?

[easytiger95]

Sorry Joe - but you are truly making a show of yourself. You don't understand what the word empirical means, you've changed over and over again what you're arguing about - remember when you said that data wasn't empirical??!!

Now you come up with

The data collected is empirical as you say, but it is not empirical evidence to what the study is discussing through the stats. So first lets take the "Smoking causes cancer" scenario which you expanded upon.
The empirical evidence is only that a patient has cancer, and that a patient smokes. The number of these people that have cancer and used to smoke is the statistical evidence used to make a link between smoking and cancer. However there is no actual empirical evidence that smoking causes cancer. Do you get what I am saying? (Please say no, or inquire if unclear, I dont want to continue pointless mud slinging)

Now this is the last time I'm going to say this - the word "empirical" relates to how data is gathered and analysed - so if is gathered by observation and measurement it is empirical. You are confusing the word "empirical" with "definitive" - so if, out of  100 lung cancer patients, 60 of them are smokers, may not be "definitive" evidence that there is a causal link. it is still empirical  because you acquired the data through empirical means - ie observing the patients and measuring the amount of smoker - any further statistical analysis is also empirical because you are working with data that was gathered empirically and you are also using statistics which are a quantitative method of analysis.

Any studies I posted are empirical because they are all based on the scientific method of research. Your analysis of the studies I posted is truly scary in its lack of understanding of basic methodology. You're coming across like a moron, and that is not mud slinging, it is just a statement of fact - an empirical observation, if you like.

Now, I truly don't think you are a moron, but you'd want to think about how you've spent a week completely misunderstanding basic phrases and concepts.

[easytiger95]

Also just to clarify your post below

Whats more, you used it to support the following statement.

Quote from: easytiger95 on October 02, 2015, 07:38:25 PM
All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.

The most glaring problem with backing up that statement with those studies, is that they are irrelevant to Catholic teaching as they did not explicitly study Catholics in Africa or the West. You could use these studies to theorise that Catholic teaching is similar to what these studies were examining, and therefore there is a good chance they will be repeated. However you said that "Empirical Evidence... points to the fact that...". To me that's completely explicit, if its not fine, let me know.

My original post quoted was in response to Iceman who posited that Church teaching on chastity could help mitigate the rate AIDS infection in Afrcia - my response clearly states that Catholic teaching on chastity (i.e abstinence, which is also the official policy of US aid agencies and other) does not work in preventing teen pregnancy and STDs either in Africa or the rest of the world. I did not limit it to African Catholics as a demographic group and the studies i have posted reflect this. One of the most pernicious effects that abstinence education has is that it influences government policy, which is them applied to citizens regardless of religion. You are dancing on the head of a pin here and it is kind of pathetic that i have to clarify that I;m talking about abstinence policy because you couldn't read back two posts on the thread from my original statement.

But please, spend a day coming up with another essay on the difference between statistics and empirical evidence. I like to start my day with a laugh.

[finbar o tool]

yawn...

back to the pope... if the catholic church/rome/the pope, gave a shite about catholics in Ireland, then the pope would have been here years ago. Catholicism is dying out in this country big time. is everyone supposed to flock to see this pope when he arrives and bow down to him?! i for one, wont be and couldn't care less if he never came.

[omaghjoe]

Now this is the last time I'm going to say this - the word "empirical" relates to how data is gathered and analysed - so if is gathered by observation and measurement it is empirical. You are confusing the word "empirical" with "definitive" - so if, out of  100 lung cancer patients, 60 of them are smokers, may not be "definitive" evidence that there is a causal link. it is still empirical  because you acquired the data through empirical means - ie observing the patients and measuring the amount of smoker - any further statistical analysis is also empirical because you are working with data that was gathered empirically and you are also using statistics which are a quantitative method of analysis.

Any studies I posted are empirical because they are all based on the scientific method of research. Your analysis of the studies I posted is truly scary in its lack of understanding of basic methodology. You're coming across like a moron, and that is not mud slinging, it is just a statement of fact - an empirical observation, if you like.

Now, I truly don't think you are a moron, but you'd want to think about how you've spent a week completely misunderstanding basic phrases and concepts.

Well I suppose I will ignore your insults if you can ignore my grammar. Although I do not make a conscious effort to have bad grammar, its a natural flair I have . Im glad your getting a laugh out of it though, cos on this end your tirade has become so repetitive and farcical it is bordering on the Pasileyesque at this point, but evidently nowhere near as effective.

Firstly your right, that statement I made about Data is technically incorrect, although I was clear in what I meant, just didn't come out right.
So lets rephrase it, "Data is not necessarily empirical evidence." It is not empirical evidence if its unrelated to what is being attempted to be proved. In the case of smoking and cancer it is circumstantial evidence, the quantities involved are statistical evidence but as yet there is no complete empirical evidence.

That's about as clear as I can be on that I think.

Also just to clarify your post below

Whats more, you used it to support the following statement.

Quote from: easytiger95 on October 02, 2015, 07:38:25 PM
All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.

My original post quoted was in response to Iceman who posited that Church teaching on chastity could help mitigate the rate AIDS infection in Afrcia - my response clearly states that Catholic teaching on chastity (i.e abstinence, which is also the official policy of US aid agencies and other) does not work in preventing teen pregnancy and STDs either in Africa or the rest of the world. I did not limit it to African Catholics as a demographic group and the studies i have posted reflect this. One of the most pernicious effects that abstinence education has is that it influences government policy, which is them applied to citizens regardless of religion. You are dancing on the head of a pin here and it is kind of pathetic that i have to clarify that I;m talking about abstinence policy because you couldn't read back two posts on the thread from my original statement.

But please, spend a day coming up with another essay on the difference between statistics and empirical evidence. I like to start my day with a laugh.

The original post in question was actually by haveaharp who implied that church teachings on contraception failed millions in Africa. In support of this statement by haveaharp you expanded it to your above quote, which included STDs, teen pregnancy, etc in both the West and Africa but was quite specific about Catholic teaching.
In support of this you posted studies on abstinence education, now I can see the link between this and Catholic teaching but to come to a conclusion as unequivocal and as encompassing as yours, you would need much more specific studies about Catholics. And perhaps more crucially, for it to move out of the realm of likelihood/opinion/chance and become fact there would surely be no evidence to directly contradict it, such as the demographical stats.

[easytiger95]

So lets rephrase it, "Data is not necessarily empirical evidence." It is not empirical evidence if its unrelated to what is being attempted to be proved. In the case of smoking and cancer it is circumstantial evidence, the quantities involved are statistical evidence but as yet there is no complete empirical evidence.

Ok, if that is as clear as you can be, then you are a moron. Sorry, but it is true. Data is always empirical because it is gathered by observation or measurement. The word empirical has no relation to the words "circumstantial" or "definitive" - empirical describes a method of gathering evidence, whereas circumstantial or definitive describe the conclusions drawn from that evidence and it's relationship to the subject being researched.

he original post in question was actually by haveaharp who implied that church teachings on contraception failed millions in Africa. In support of this statement by haveaharp you expanded it to your above quote, which included STDs, teen pregnancy, etc in both the West and Africa but was quite specific about Catholic teaching.
In support of this you posted studies on abstinence education, now I can see the link between this and Catholic teaching but to come to a conclusion as unequivocal and as encompassing as yours, you would need much more specific studies about Catholics. And perhaps more crucially, for it to move out of the realm of likelihood/opinion/chance and become fact there would surely be no evidence to directly contradict it, such as the demographical stats.


The post I responded to was by Iceman, who queried whether Church teaching could help stop the spread of AIDS. I responded that Church teaching ie abstinence has been proved not to be effective, wherever it has been used. Now, I know for someone of your limited capacity this may be hard to understand, but the Catholic Church is not the only institution that proposes abstinence as a policy, nor did i propose to specifically study the effects of abstinence in Catholics only in Africa. Also, there are more religions than Catholics in Africa. So no, I don't need to come up with specific studies for Catholics to cover what was a general statement, a statement borne out by the links that I posted.

What next for tomorrow Joe? Do we have to start breaking down the alphabet for you? Or do we whip out our multiplication tables?

If I were you i'd put my head down on the desk and have some quiet time...

BTW Pasileyesque!!!

C'mon, admit, Omaghjoe is just a parody account, very good though

[omaghjoe]

Sorry tiger, busy ole weekend, I hope your mornings have not been 2 glum without me.

I get what your saying tiger and it makes logical sense. However I would have thought that in the scientific world if your testing a hypothesis, you would test it directly and therefore any resulting empirical evidence would be direct evidence rather than circumstantial. Therefore empirical evidence would always be definitive. My understanding (could be wrong) is that empirical evidence in the scientific setting at least is total definitive evidence (unless other empirical evidence contradicts it), that's if science even operates in such absolute terms. I would have thought that empirical data that is circumstantial evidence could not be deemed empirical evidence because you have to use thought or reason to reach those conclusions, therefore it could only be empirical in isolation (ie data).

You could well be right tho, that the term empirical includes all types of evidence no matter how remotely related it is. To me my understanding seems the more reasonable of the two tho but I am biased of course, and I must admit I am bit hesitant to take your word for it , considering you see this whole discussion as a contest.

But I suspect that you where thinking along the same lines as myself when you tied the term "empirical evidence" with the term "fact." On the other hand if we use your ambiguous definition of empirical evidence (in terms of degree of proof) it would not be adequate to use it to establish a "fact".

Anyway more specifically about your statement, you were using absolute terms, therefore the context is actually irrelevant, if you wanted to contradict Iceman you should have been more specific. It would appear that are you isolating one aspect of Catholic teaching, deeming it be ineffective in isolation and then using that as evidence to deem all Catholic teaching as ineffective. What's more it was classified as a fact, when there is also evidence that directly contradicts it, so its actually not fact. Also since this is a study of human behaviour it could never be a fact as the behaviour could change, so it could never actually be deemed a fact, that goes for both sides of the coin BTW.

[easytiger95]

 My understanding (could be wrong) is that empirical evidence in the scientific setting at least is total definitive evidence (unless other empirical evidence contradicts it), that's if science even operates in such absolute terms.


Your understanding is wrong.

I would have thought that empirical data that is circumstantial evidence could not be deemed empirical evidence because you have to use thought or reason to reach those conclusions, therefore it could only be empirical in isolation (ie data).


Conclusions are conclusions - you can reach them through an evidence based, empirical process, or a hypothetical, rationalism based process - they are the two basic methods. Whether evidence is circumstantial is irrelevant to the method used. Data is data and it's gathering and use is the basis of the empirical method.

But I suspect that you where thinking along the same lines as myself when you tied the term "empirical evidence" with the term "fact." On the other hand if we use your ambiguous definition of empirical evidence (in terms of degree of proof) it would not be adequate to use it to establish a "fact".

I could never think along the same lines as yourself, as you do not seem to have any logical process to your thoughts. Data are "facts" - so when I said that empirical evidence proved my point, I was saying that evidence gathered by the scientific, fact based, data based, method proved it. Now, in any other example, you could gather empirical evidence that would disprove a given point. That is the point of the scientific method - you let the facts determine the outcome, unlike positing a hypothesis and proving it through rationalism. If facts don't prove a point, that does not make their gathering or assessment any less empirical.

Anyway more specifically about your statement, you were using absolute terms, therefore the context is actually irrelevant, if you wanted to contradict Iceman you should have been more specific. It would appear that are you isolating one aspect of Catholic teaching, deeming it be ineffective in isolation and then using that as evidence to deem all Catholic teaching as ineffective. What's more it was classified as a fact, when there is also evidence that directly contradicts it, so its actually not fact. Also since this is a study of human behaviour it could never be a fact as the behaviour could change, so it could never actually be deemed a fact, that goes for both sides of the coin BTW.


I don't think I'll be taking any advice from you on how to argue a point - given your posts, your consistent inability (by your own admission) to define or understand the terms involved, the misunderstanding is on your side. What is ineffective is the Catholic Church's teaching on abstinence, just as it is ineffective when practiced by NGOs, the US State Department or other religions. I didn't say that all the Church's teachings are ineffective - once again, you inferred that without any evidence - for instance, I think the Pope's teachings on global warming to be a big step forward for the world. But like most blinkered people, you see only what you want to see. The evidence you posted and say directly contradicts my point, comes from a completely biased viewpoint, that of Church backed studies. Anything I posted is empirical, peer reviewed and credible - which is the whole point of this argument. So it is a fact that abstinence is ineffective in prevent the spread of HIV and teenage pregnancies.

lso since this is a study of human behaviour it could never be a fact as the behaviour could change, so it could never actually be deemed a fact, that goes for both sides of the coin BTW.


Jesus, if you had brains you'd be dangerous...

The facts are that humans were measured behaving in one way. If they change their behaviour afterwards, it doesn't change the facts of what went before. That is like saying the Nazis didn't exist because there are no death camps in German now.

You've admitted above you've got it wrong. You should just leave it at that, instead of embarrassing yourself.