Theory of Homosexuality

[JesusA (imported)]

My understanding of the scientific method is, "First the theory, then the data."

You have that backwards. The scientific method is to take all of the data that you currently have on the subject and try to formulate the simplest and most logical way to explain ALL of it. This is then called a “theory.” Any proper theory, by nature of its formulation, will clearly indicate the kinds of NEW data that would prove it wrong.

Scientists then begin searching for ways to disprove the theory. You can NEVER prove a theory correct, as that would require collecting 100% of every possible piece of data that could possibly exist concerning it. You can prove it wrong with only a single observation of a properly documented fact that doesn’t fit it.

Scientists never prove anything to be true, they only tentatively hold logical explanations that have not yet been proven false. The longer the search for contrary data has turned up nothing, the more they are willing to accept the theory as probably (but never absolutely) correct.

The “theory of gravity” for example, is still being tested, but without much enthusiasm as it’s difficult to think of new lines of inquiry that might disprove it that haven’t already been tried. The “theory of relativity” gets more attention from physicists and there are continuing attempts to find holes in it, including some fairly interesting ones. The “theory of evolution” gets most of its attention from religious fundamentalists, not from scientists, though the continuing collection of data has resulted in slight modifications of the theory over time. For example, Darwin knew nothing of genes, but their discovery added a mechanism to his theory, rather than proving it false. The new work on epigenetics is extending it yet again in promising directions.

.

[JesusA (imported)]

It is widely accepted in medicine and biopsychology that sexual orientation in males is largely due to biological influences (e.g., Swaab, 2007; Swaab & Garcia-Falgeras, 2009). ‘Biological’ in this case refers to fixed factors that are unrelated to social influences. There is, for example, evidence from twin and family studies that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetic and epigenetic factors (Hamer & Copeland, 1994; Vanderlaan & Vasey, 2009; Santilla et al., 2008) although the specific genes that may be responsible for the inherited component have not yet been identified (Ellis et al., 2008). There are documented correlates between sexual orientation in males and other biological characteristics, including left-handedness, sibling birth order (i.e., having older brothers increases the chances of a male being gay) and phenotypic differences (e.g., statistically significant differences in relative length of the index and ring fingers and in penis size).

For example, a study of the penises of 5,122 men (4,187 straight and 935 gay) found, of course, that both the length of their erect penises and the circumference fell on a bell-shaped curve, from micro-penis to porn-star size. When the gays and straights were treated as separate populations, there were bell-shaped curves with the peak at different points. The average erect penis of a homosexual male was o.32 inches longer and o.15 inches greater in circumference than that of the average straight male. Both measurements are significant at p<0.0001. (Bogaert & Hershberger, 1999) [Penis enlargement anyone?]

Furthermore, evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists have suggested a number of pathways by which natural selection could retain gay males in a population (Freeman & Herron, 2001; Rahman & Wilson, 2003).

It follows from these biological explanations that sexual orientation would be largely determined by the time of birth.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Bogaert, A.F. & Hershberger, S. (1999). The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28: 213-221.

Ellis, L., Ficek, C., Burke, D., & Das, S. (2008). Eye color, hair color, blood type, and the rhesus factor: Exploring possible genetic links to sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 145-149.

Freeman, S., & Herron, J. C. Evolutionary analysis. (2001). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hamer, D. H., & Copeland, P. (1994). The science of desire: The search for the gay gene and the biology of behaviour. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rahman, Q., & Wilson, D. (2003). Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1337–1382.

Santtila, P., Sandnabba, N. K., Harlaar, N., Varjonen, M., Alanko, K., & von der Pahlen, B. (2008). Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic. Biological Psychology, 77, 102-105.

Swaab, D.F. (2007). Sexual differentiation of the brain and behavior. Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 21(3): 431-444.

Swaab, D.F. & Garcia-Falgueras, A. (2009). Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Functional Neurology, 24(1): 17-28.

Vanderlaan, D. P., & Vasey, P. L. (2009). Male sexual orientation in independent Samoa: Evidence for fraternal birth order and maternal fecundity effects. Archives of Sexual Behavior, [Epub ahead of print]

.

[loveableleopardy (imported)]

For example, a study of the penises of 5,122 men (4,187 straight and 935 gay) found, of course, that both the length of their erect penises and the circumference fell on a bell-shaped curve, from micro-penis to porn-star size. When the gays and straights were treated as separate populations, there were bell-shaped curves with the peak at different points. The average erect penis of a homosexual male was o.32 inches longer and o.15 inches greater in circumference than that of the average straight male. Both measurements are significant at p<0.0001. (Bogaert & Hershberger, 1999) [Penis enlargement anyone?]

Perhaps the above is another reason why so many women end up saying, "Too bad he's gay!"

[sensenbender (imported)]

Originally Posted by sensenbender

My understanding of the scientif

ic method is, "First the theory, then the data."

You have that backwards. The scientific method is to take all of the data that you currently have on the subject and try to formulate the simplest and most logical way to explain ALL of it. This is then called a “theory.” Any proper theory, by nature of its formulation, will clearl

y indicate the kinds of NEW data that would prove it wrong.

.

Einstein first 'visualized' his theory of relativity in it's entirety. He then spent most of the rest of his life developing the mathematics that he could use to describe it and communicate it to others. Others then began developing the experiments that would yield the data to substantiate (not prove) his theories.

But then, perhaps your backwards is my forwards, who knows.

[transward (imported)]

Originally Posted by sensenbender

My understanding of the scient

ific method is, "First the theory, then the data."

Einstein first 'visualized' his theory of relativity in it's entirety. He then spent most of the rest of his life developing the mathematics that he could use to describe it and communicate it to others. Others then began developing the experiments that would yield the data to substantiate (not prove) his theories.

But then, perhaps your backwards is my forwards, who knows.

Einstein did not create relativity in its entirety without data, In fact His first, the Special Theory published in 1905, was to a large degree an attempt to explain the data resulting from the Michelson-Morley experiment showing the unexpected result that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light. The whole question is a chicken vs. the egg problem. Newton's classical mechanics were a theory that best explained the data for a while. New experiments meant to prove Newton by Michelson-Morley created data that did not fit Newton's theory, so Einstein posited relativity which created new experiments that created new data that is even now producing new theories, that will lead to new experiments (that's the main purpose of the Large Hadron Collider) that will create new data which will lead to new theories. And so it goes.

Transward

Transward

[nullorchis (imported)]

Perhaps the above is another reason why so many women end up saying, "Too bad he's gay!"

Regarding the Penis Study, variables like age, height, body size, ethnic group could all play a part in debunking the study. I would think you would need to first study persons of same classification, then compare classifications.

As far as women saying 'all the good ones are taken or gay'; a study of gay ones on appearance that attracted women might reveal that many (most?) gay men need to control their weight and look good in order to attract other gay men as the playing field is not all that big. Being obese, unattractive, and gay may appeal to some, but a small percentage. Big penises on unattractive men and small penises on gorgeous men however does seem to frequently overrule most factors. Big is good, small is not.

[gareth19 (imported)]

Einstein did not create relativity in its entirety without data, In fact His first, the Special Theory published in 1905, was to a large degree an attempt to explain the data resulting from the Michelson-Morley experiment showing the unexpected result that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light. The whole question is a chicken vs. the egg problem. Newton's classical mechanics were a theory that best explained the data for a while. New experiments meant to prove Newton by Michelson-Morley created data that did not fit Newton's theory, so Einstein posited relativity which created new experiments that created new data that is even now producing new theories, that will lead to new experiments (that's the main purpose of the Large Hadron Collider) that will create new data which will lead to new theories. And so it goes.

Transward

Transward

Real theory, as opposed to mindless drivel like Velikovsky, always arises to explain pre-existing observations or data; a proper theory should explain all and only the observations, but a great theory will have unintended consequences and unify or apply to new situations. Marie Curie observed that pitchblende (uranium ore) was more radioactive than pure uranium; she hypothesized that it contained another radioactive substance; she found two polonium and radium and later radon, in consequence of this, nucelar physicists posited a series of radioactive decay by the elimination of alpha particles; this resulted in two new observations. One that alpha particles had the same mass as helium and two Mendeleev's periodic law was flawed; chemical properties were not dependent on atomic weight but on atomic number (which had hitherto been regarded as merely a bookkeeping fiction) so that it was possible for an element to have more than one atomic weight (isotopes). The observation that alpha particles have the same mass as helium atoms lead to the discovery that they were, and provided an explanation for the presence of helium in deep wells, from the decay of radioactive material in the earth.

Finally, radioactivity explained another mystery, the source of the heat that has melted the interior of the earth. But discovering that there was a natural heat source refuted Lord Kelvin's understated estimate of the age of the earth and the supposed decisive argument against geological time and Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The trajectory of scientific throught is never straight. "Time in its journey takes many turns but it never retreats."

[sensenbender (imported)]

The “theory of gravity” for example, is still being tested, but without much enthusiasm as it’s difficult to think of new lines of inquiry that might disprove it that haven’t already been tried. .

There was an article in Science Times recently that reported the theories of a Swedish Mathemetician who suggests that aspects of string theory might replace the existing 'theory of gravity' in light of nature's tendency toward 'perfect' disorder. I don't pretend to understand his theory or his math for that matter, but near as I can tell he is suggesting that we are all pinned to the earth not by the curvature of space/time but by the prevalence of and pressure toward disorder in natural processes.

Point being that even the established theory of gravity might succomb to "

new lines of inquiry that might disprove it

".

[transward (imported)]

There was an article in Science Times recently that reported the theories of a Swedish Mathemetician who suggests that aspects of string theory might replace the existing 'theory of gravity' in light of nature's tendency toward 'perfect' disorder. I don't pretend to understand his theory or his math for that matter, but near as I can tell he is suggesting that we are all pinned to the earth not by the curvature of space/time but by the prevalence of and pressure toward disorder in natural processes.

Point being that even the established theory of gravity might succomb to "

new lines of inquiry that might disprove it

".

Were I a rock climber, I do not think I would put too much faith in any body's disproving of gravity, no matter how rigorous the proof.

Transward

[sensenbender (imported)]

Were I a rock climber, I do not think I would put too much faith in any body's disproving of gravity, no matter how rigorous the proof.

Transward

Touché!

But....since this thread is supposed to be about the theory of homosexuality, here's another question for which a theory might be appropriate: Is homophobia innate? We have a consensus on this site that homosexuality is innate, i.e. we're born with it, and that it manifests itself in degrees, i.e. most people are mostly straight, and some are mostly queer, but everybody 'has it' to some degree.

So, since we are born with homosexual tendencies - to whatever degree - are we also born with homophobia to some degree? Most men find the idea of fucking another man absolutely disgusting and repulsive, but they don't feel that way about fucking women. Same with many women, but vice versa. So is that homophobia and are we born with it?

Even those who have homoerotic fantasies, conscious or unconscious, find the idea of actually 'doing it' icky to say the least. Some are so thoroughly repelled by intra-gender sex that they resort to queer bashing both mental and physical.

Are we born with this disgust, those who harbor it, or do we learn it from our parents or life experiences, i.e. from the 'dominant culture'?