I don’t think you got the point of what I was saying. I’ll give another example and if that doesn’t help we can just leave it at “we agree to disagree”.

When I go to the doctor for something, she may prescribe some medication. If I take the notion that I won’t belive anything that I have not verified for myself then I will need to read an awful lot before I can take my medicine. I’ll need to start with the FDA’s publication on the approved uses of the medicine. Then I’ll have to go find the application information for the drug’s approval, and the published articles on the studies. And I’ll want to read the researchers other work to make sure they have no pervading bias. I probably also want financial reports to make sure they had no undue profit motive. And of course I’ll need to do all the background reading to educate myself to the point where I can evaluate this stuff properly. Just to take an Advil I will probably need to read several million words of information.

Science only works if you can trust another person’s results at some level. That’s why people who get caught faking results are treated like pariahs by the rest of the scientific community.

This couple at UC are doing a good job from what I read. The only issues were due to a “slant” imposed by the reporter.

A better exercise would be, imo, to take two surveys that produced different results – or even slightly different results, or even identical results – and to have the students analyze them comparatively, not just the stats but the way the survey itself was conducted, and try to figure out why there were different results, or identical ones. I think that this exercise would do more to “encourage students to evaluate their own attitudes and behaviours” as scientists, than presenting them with the instrumental use of stats. I also think that this would do a better job at taking the “I” out of sex-education, and to encourage objectivity.

“If you want to change that, or you believe they are incapable”

Um, they are not paying *me* their tuition fees to teach them or change them are they? Unless I get paid for it I don’t want to change anything. I am simply stating my opinion that the instrumental use of survey based stats is not good science. If students are willing to pay money to be taught how to be bad scientists, more power to them. I know that’s cynical, but I have seen enough bad science in my lifetime to realize that masses of students are perfectly willing to pay gold for some pretty worthless instruction. And I guess in the end it makes it that much easier for the rest of us to weed out the good scientists from the bad ones. Here you don’t have to take the good ones with the bad ones ;-)

@ChickenSpeedspotter university students should be able (as you obviously can, to take all statistics with a grain, or tablespoon full of salt)
If you want to change that, or you believe they are incapable then get behind proposals like this:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_changing_math_education.html

The statistics cited in this article are unreffereanced so any speculation on their accuracy is just that, speculative.

The fact that this couple, who have had some form of a working relationship for decades, is prepared to share their knowledge and encourage students to evaluate their own attitudes and behaviours is, I feel very valuable.

What issue have with this I am not really sure, the stats don’t fit your world-view? the reporters a dick? expand please.
Thank you

Lies, damned lies, and statistics?

I’m sorry I totally disagree. Interpreting survey data, especially when the survey data is but a collection of self-assessments by a population, is not real science. That’s -pardon me- “bullshit in, gospel out”. I really think science ought to be more than just taking survey data at face value, and assuming that just because the research was produced by a well meaning scientist and published in a reputable journal it’s OK to use the data to make a point or to get at a point. Doing real science is to investigate the data, the questionnaire and the process of questioning all together. If it doesn’t come with an appendix or two don’t trust it.

“You also trust that two profs at the school who read the original article and are presenting it to their class first read the article and decided that the data gathering method described was reasonable”

The point I am trying to make is that rather than teaching their students to trust survey data “just because the teacher read it beforehand and ascertained it is kosher”, they have an obligation to teach their students to be critical of surveys. Instead they are teaching their students an instrumental use of survey data, which is not good science imo.

At some point you have to be willing to accept that other people did a competent job in obtaining their data and that the journal editors were competent in checking it. You also trust that two profs at the school who read the original article and are presenting it to their class first read the article and decided that the data gathering method described was reasonable. If you for some reason find any of those suspect then, yes you should go check yourself which is why the written material probably included citations for the information they quote in lecture. If you finally come to the conclusion that the data is flawed then you run your own experiment and publish those results.

Either way, it’s still a fact that “a particular researcher did a particular survey under some particular conditions with a particular protocol and got a particular result” and it’s not just an opinion.

An opinion would be if they stood up and said “hey I think men all want sex and women are all prudes” (an offensive opinion at that!). But if they quote a study that has the figures cited in the article and they lead that into a discussion of what the data implies then they are doing exactly what they should be doing.

I think what is making a few people, including, VB unhappy is the interpretation and additions by the reporter. For example, the profs say “no, it’s not about us” but the reporter insists on talking about how the profs “are a role model for the students”. It sounded to me like the profs are working hard to teach an objective class, but the reporter wanted to use the “cute old adorable couple teach sex class” angle and so the reporter has added his/her own distortion.

Science does not come in the form of a “collection of self assessments” from a population the scientists “believe” were serious when they answered the survey.

Science is to investigate the survey itself, looking to see whether the researchers included check-up questions to control whether the respondents were either paying attention or *consistently* telling the truth. Teaching students to analyze and question surveys, the outcome as well as the questions asked, that is good science, teaching students to uncritically accept survey results is not.

If we’re talking about formal education, then I certainly believe the core of it should be objective and not making value judgements about what is or isn’t “good” sexuality. On the other hand, I’m wondering if there isn’t a place in people’s learning for some more subjective examples, too – from what I’ve learned of education theory, learners do tend to benefit from having concepts placed in an authentic context.

Care would have to be taken that the personal likes and dislikes in a teacher’s experience aren’t considered in any way authoritative or normative, though. Anything that’s pushing a “this is how you should/must feel” message about sex runs the risk of eroding both ability and authority to teach. And if you’re going to be providing context, trying to ensure it’s _relevant_ context for the learners, too.

Anyhow, this class sounded like a thoughtful and fairly non-biased class. I’m not sure why you would object.