Nah, i'm going directly to the root of my knowledge.

Qualitative studies in most cases are crap.

That's why company's pay a lot of money for them. It takes a lot of skill.

It's nearly impossible to get a good Qualitative study on something like how a certain brand of shoes make someone feel. The problems with Qualitiative studies only increase when you get to more and more emotionally charged issues.

Even then, you don't know if you're right... you have to see if the shoe sells, and if it does, you were right... you guess... if it doesn't... you screwed up... or your sample wasn't right...

In situations like this. The real world stats are far more indicitive then labratory expierments because this is something that can't properly be expiermented on.

Qualitative studies just won't work on this kind of thing. Qualitative studies don't mean anything until you have the real world statistics to back them up.  They're just guesses up until then.

As for the quantative studies their are a dozen ways they are flawed.

You can find some of them in the last paper I liked.

I that was true then science fails (exaguration) that is a Hasty Generalization^. And your talking about the qaulity of the instruments (in this case humans) we use. This goes both ways stats have failled and been misinterpited just as many times if not more.

Stats never fail.

They are often misinterpreted or miss collected but the numbers themselves never fail... and they are usually only misinterprited by those who haven't taken a statistics course or two. (Unless the misinterpretation is intentional.)

Qualitative studies have the highest failure rates of any kind of studying because they don't rely on any real numbers or stats of any kind. That's something someone who knows stuff about the field should know.

This debate is now pointless

I have taken 3 stats classes a can assure you they say what ever you want them to. They tell you nothing they point in the right direction if you interput them right.

And I would never take that over a well done study of which there have been many on this subject.

No. No you can't.

You can manipulate the data to do so through omission.

Or show correlations that don't account for other factors. But you can't just make the numbers magically say something different.

If you have a database open and show all of the factors you measured their isn't anything you can hide from another statistician. Can things just be outright missed? Sure. But falsefication will be found... so will things being outright missed unless said things are just inconceivable.

So, i'm really doubting your credentials here.

Qualitative studies are only used by proffesionals where you are trying to measure something where their are no numbers. You haven't even linked a single study where it says porn = more rape.

The closest thing you've linked is porn = I think rape is less horrible.

Or People who commited rape and other crimes saying = Yeah, porn made it worse!

If your willing to believe a study like that... you'd be surprised that most of the people in prison right now are actually innocent.

The fact is... the studies you are linking aren't studies on what i'm talking about. Which, if you have that many stat classes under your belt you should know.

You aren't even allowed to do a direct expierment on such a thing due to ethical guidelines.  Making statistical analysis the best option. 

This thread wasn't nearly as hot as the title implied.

 To be fair the last one had links to porn sites.  I'm guessing that's why a new topic was started.

Well i'm sorry I didn't include my (exaguration) clause. But they are easliy missinterpited even by experts.

They're are too many variables to have an accurate statistical analysis on this. Your tying to tell me the unquantifiable number of variable for the reasons the crime rate goes down have been removed. And then deny what other sudies show.

Then you call me lair multiply times. Yet you admit to the studies only to deny there exististance and ask for proof.

I have not lied to you and I'm getting tired of the insults, and innuendos.

You are no longer arguing about the study but rather every single thing along the way. The same things can be argued of your side of this issue and you damn well know it. We might as well argue over electron microscopes and whether or not they are properly calibrated. because that is what it has boiled down.

Clearly you are on the LEFT and I am on the RIGHT.

Do your best not to insult me on the way out.

Oh and if you want to know one of the studies I did it was not on humans but rather the electrolysis of water as it releate to clean fuel production.

This is a really long read, and I watch porn all the time. Is that good or bad for me?