Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests

[Taylor]

No, YOU are committing the same error as Kaya. Mistaking the word "proven" for the word "true". A hypothesis is certainly proven, and science can certainly proven many things.

Wrong. Science by definition doesn't PROVE anything. Its inductive. To believe otherwise indicates that you don't understand the basic logic underlying experimentation.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Wrong. Science by definition doesn't PROVE anything. Its inductive. To believe otherwise indicates that you don't understand the basic logic underlying experimentation.

One again, you are demonstrating that you do not understand research concepts. An experiment can be "proven" if the parameters of the hypothesis are met. That does not necessarily mean that it is "true", however until the opposite is "proven" it is accepted as accurate.

 

[Taylor]

An experiment can be "proven" if the parameters of the hypothesis are met.

We are not talking about "proving experiments" whatever you're trying to make that mean. You claimed that hypotheses and science can PROVE things. You are wrong. You can either admit it and move on, or continue to look foolish.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

We are not talking about "proving experiments" whatever you're trying to make that mean. You claimed that hypotheses and science can PROVE things. You are wrong. You can either admit it and move on, or continue to look foolish.

You continue to look foolish as you continue to not understand the difference between "proof" and "truth". Hypothesis and science CAN PROVE THINGS. That does not necessarily denote that they are accurate. I have said this REPEATEDLY. The fact that you do not get this either shows that you are being intentionally belligerent, or, as I have said, do not understand the basics of research. If it is the latter, fine... now you've learned something. If it is the former, just admit it.

 

[Thorgasm]

Hey, I am willing to bet that kids with lesbian parents never run out of tampons. That's one less problem!

 

[Taylor]

You continue to look foolish as you continue to not understand the difference between "proof" and "truth".

I understand the difference quite well. "Proof" is something you cannot provide for your position. "Truth" is something you're avoiding as you try to wiggle your way out of a position that is obviously wrong (as no doubt your internet research has already told you).

Hypothesis and science CAN PROVE THINGS. That does not necessarily denote that they are accurate. I have said this REPEATEDLY.

And bless your heart, you have been wrong, REPEATEDLY. Whether or not the hypothesis is accurate is irrelevant.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I understand the difference quite well. "Proof" is something you cannot provide for your position. "Truth" is something you're avoiding as you try to wiggle your way out of a position that is obviously wrong (as no doubt your internet research has already told you).

No, proof is what I have shown. Truth is what you have none of. Hope that clears things up for you.

And bless your heart, you have been wrong, REPEATEDLY. Whether or not the hypothesis is accurate is irrelevant.

No, you have completely failed to PROVE anything that you have said, demonstrating that it is not proven. And, since you have no facts for your position, it is also inaccurate.

 

[Taylor]

No, proof is what I have shown.

Saying things "repeatedly" is not proof. Link to the "proof" you've provided demonstrating that hypotheses are proven in science.