87 replies to this topic

[iargue]

I have a big fat Ph.D thesis on my bookshelf about homosexual behaviour in animals. It's called Biological Exuberance.
Just because people would find other ways to justify their bigotry, is no reason to believe that removing one way isn't an improvement. It is.

Hahahahahaha.

Man, I laughed for atleast 10 minutes when I read this.

"Bruce Bagemihl is a Canadian biologist, linguist, and author of the book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity."
"He served on the faculty of University of British Columbia, and he earned a Ph.D. in linguistics from there in 1988."

Seriously? Because he has a Phd in Linguistics (The study of the human language) hes an expert on animals mating patterns?

Good to know.

Like fuck. If your going to post as source, or consume something as fact. ATLEAST FUCKING RESEARCH IT.

There is a person with a phd in psychology that claims that aliens rule our world. Do you believe the bullshit he spouts because he has the PHD title?

There is something seriously wrong with this world.

[Waser Lave]

Seriously? Because he has a Phd in Linguistics (The study of the human language) hes an expert on animals mating patterns?

Perhaps you missed the part where it says he's also a biologist.

[ShadowLink64]

Seriously? Because he has a Phd in Linguistics (The study of the human language) hes an expert on animals mating patterns?

Bruce Bagemihl spent 10 years scouring the biological literature for data on alternative sexuality in animals to write "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity,"...

http://www.donshewey.com/1999_zine/biological_exuberance.html

No, but him looking into it for 10 years kind of does.

They just happened to have a Ph.D in Linguistics, but that seems to be the only part of your critique on his person that you focused on for some reason.

[Nymh]

"Bruce Bagemihl is a Canadian biologist, linguist, and author of the book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity."
"He served on the faculty of University of British Columbia, and he earned a Ph.D. in linguistics from there in 1988."

Seriously? Because he has a Phd in Linguistics (The study of the human language) hes an expert on animals mating patterns?

Good to know.

Like fuck. If your going to post as source, or consume something as fact. ATLEAST FUCKING RESEARCH IT.

You know, just because he's a Ph.D. in Linguistics doesn't mean that he has not studied or researched in any other fields. It says right there that he's a biologist, and spending about as much time researching the dude as you likely did I found that he spent 9+ years researching for that book (which has been cited in a U.S. Supreme court case).

Geez calm down

[iargue]

You know, just because he's a Ph.D. in Linguistics doesn't mean that he has not studied or researched in any other fields. It says right there that he's a biologist, and spending about as much time researching the dude as you likely did I found that he spent 9+ years researching for that book (which has been cited in a U.S. Supreme court case).

Geez calm down

Who cares what he researched, or where he researched. He has nothing of note that distinguishes himself as an expert in that field. He studies the english language. All of his schooling went to studying the English language. Nothing in his schooling taught him about biology. I can sit and stare at apes for ages too, but I wont know what type of ape it is, or anything biological about it, until I am taught how to recognize and identify what needs to be done.

The PHD system is setup to establish where you are an expert in. In what you know. If I just stopped working on computers and started theoretical physics for 10 years, would that make me an expert in the field, simply because I switched over to it?

http://www.donshewey.com/1999_zine/biological_exuberance.html

No, but him looking into it for 10 years kind of does.

They just happened to have a Ph.D in Linguistics, but that seems to be the only part of your critique on his person that you focused on for some reason.

If reading books was all it took to make you an expert on something, I would be an expert in several different fields by now.

Whatever, accept what other people tell you blindly, the rest of the world does it anyways.

[artificial]

The PHD system is setup to establish where you are an expert in. In what you know. If I just stopped working on computers and started theoretical physics for 10 years, would that make me an expert in the field, simply because I switched over to it?

No, you would be an expert because you dedicated 10 years of your life to the field.

[Sweeney]

Hahahahahaha.
Man, I laughed for atleast 10 minutes when I read this.
"Bruce Bagemihl is a Canadian biologist, linguist, and author of the book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity."
"He served on the faculty of University of British Columbia, and he earned a Ph.D. in linguistics from there in 1988."
Seriously? Because he has a Phd in Linguistics (The study of the human language) hes an expert on animals mating patterns?
Good to know.
Like fuck. If your going to post as source, or consume something as fact. ATLEAST FUCKING RESEARCH IT.
There is a person with a phd in psychology that claims that aliens rule our world. Do you believe the bullshit he spouts because he has the PHD title?
There is something seriously wrong with this world.

Glad to entertain you.
As literally every other person has pointed out to you, he's also a biologist with nigh on ten years of research on this specific topic. Ph.D thesis was not the right term to use.
But it was shorter than "critically acclaimed, frequently cited, award winning, heavily researched book of over 750 pages and 300 studies".
Apologies for favouring brevity.

He's an expert on animal mating patterns, because he's an expert on animal mating patterns. Not because he has a Ph.D.

The very idea of you criticising my choice of reference is enough to seriously damage my irony meter. Be careful.

Who cares what he researched, or where he researched. He has nothing of note that distinguishes himself as an expert in that field. He studies the english language. All of his schooling went to studying the English language. Nothing in his schooling taught him about biology. I can sit and stare at apes for ages too, but I wont know what type of ape it is, or anything biological about it, until I am taught how to recognize and identify what needs to be done.

You don't actually know what "Linguistics" is the study of, do you?
To quote the University of Columbia (his alma mater) "Linguistics investigates language in three ways: as self-contained system (sounds, words, grammar, syntax); as constituent of culture and society; and as cognitive and neurological operation of individuals."
You'll notice that as well as studying language in isolation, they also study it in a social context. On top of that, they study neurology to a degree. A Ph.D in Linguistics, depending on the specific topic which I can't find in this case, would indicate an extremely good grasp of anthropology and biology, as well as pure linguistics.
It's also worth noting that the UoC offers Linguistics students part of their study at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Biology. So there's definitely no biology involved in the course

(Also, the reason you could sit and look at apes for ages without learning anything biological about them, is that you're a retard. Where do you think our knowledge of Biology comes from? Printed into textbooks from Jesus?)

No, you would be an expert because you dedicated 10 years of your life to the field.

Remember who you're talking about. It took iargue almost ten years to learn how to behave in a socially acceptable manner.
And he still fucks up all the time.

[Averssion]

The PHD system is setup to establish where you are an expert in. In what you know. If I just stopped working on computers and started theoretical physics for 10 years, would that make me an expert in the field, simply because I switched over to it?

I'd just like to point out that you don't need a PhD to be an 'expert' in something- truth be told, you don't even need a masters.

And yes, if you stopped working on computers and then studied theoretical physics for 10 years, you would probably be an expert. And you don't have to 'switch' over to something - being an expert in multiple fields at the same time is eminently possible. The term 'expert' is misleading... but I won't argue semantics with you.

[iargue]

Glad to entertain you.
As literally every other person has pointed out to you, he's also a biologist with nigh on ten years of research on this specific topic. Ph.D thesis was not the right term to use.
But it was shorter than "critically acclaimed, frequently cited, award winning, heavily researched book of over 750 pages and 300 studies".
Apologies for favouring brevity.

He's an expert on animal mating patterns, because he's an expert on animal mating patterns. Not because he has a Ph.D.

The very idea of you criticising my choice of reference is enough to seriously damage my irony meter. Be careful.


You don't actually know what "Linguistics" is the study of, do you?
To quote the University of Columbia (his alma mater) "Linguistics investigates language in three ways: as self-contained system (sounds, words, grammar, syntax); as constituent of culture and society; and as cognitive and neurological operation of individuals."
You'll notice that as well as studying language in isolation, they also study it in a social context. On top of that, they study neurology to a degree. A Ph.D in Linguistics, depending on the specific topic which I can't find in this case, would indicate an extremely good grasp of anthropology and biology, as well as pure linguistics.
It's also worth noting that the UoC offers Linguistics students part of their study at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Biology. So there's definitely no biology involved in the course

(Also, the reason you could sit and look at apes for ages without learning anything biological about them, is that you're a retard. Where do you think our knowledge of Biology comes from? Printed into textbooks from Jesus?)


Remember who you're talking about. It took iargue almost ten years to learn how to behave in a socially acceptable manner.
And he still fucks up all the time.

You realize he didn't study these animals right? He read books written by other people about these animals. Nothing in what he did shows that he became an expert in his field. All that this book shows is that the reads a whole lot, and that he wrote a book about what he read. There isn't even much proof that he understood what he wrote.

There are thousands of award winning books out there that contain false information. You've yet to show me anything at all that show this guy knows his stuff.

[Sweeney]

You realize he didn't study these animals right? He read books written by other people about these animals. Nothing in what he did shows that he became an expert in his field. All that this book shows is that the reads a whole lot, and that he wrote a book about what he read.

It's called a literature review.
I'm not sure how you can justify the opinion that spending ten years reading and collating research doesn't equate to an in-depth knowledge.

There isn't even much proof that he understood what he wrote.

Uh? What?
You realise, when I say "critically acclaimed", I mean "within the circles of academia surrounding evolutionary biology". Not just, like, The Daily Mail. (Although the Mail on Sunday did also write a glowing review).
I don't think Nature would write that a book "should surely become the standard reference work for research on the topics covered" if it was full of waffle by someone who didn't understand the topic.

There are thousands of award winning books out there that contain false information. You've yet to show me anything at all that show this guy knows his stuff.

Um. Not in the "non-fiction" genre.

I also note that you have nothing to say with regards to the fact that linguistics is, at least partially, a subset of biology.

[Nymh]

You've yet to show me anything at all that show this guy knows his stuff.

He's gay

He wrote a book about gay animals

Does this satisfy?

[artificial]

I can't believe noone posted this, tsk.

[iargue]

It's called a literature review.
I'm not sure how you can justify the opinion that spending ten years reading and collating research doesn't equate to an in-depth knowledge.


Uh? What?
You realise, when I say "critically acclaimed", I mean "within the circles of academia surrounding evolutionary biology". Not just, like, The Daily Mail. (Although the Mail on Sunday did also write a glowing review).
I don't think Nature would write that a book "should surely become the standard reference work for research on the topics covered" if it was full of waffle by someone who didn't understand the topic.


Um. Not in the "non-fiction" genre.

I also note that you have nothing to say with regards to the fact that linguistics is, at least partially, a subset of biology.

Spending years reading doesn't signify that you actually understand what you read. I've dealt with plenty of people who have failed reading comprehension on books. Especially books that are hundreds of pages long, they get bored part way through and screw up. Clearly its impossible that this ever happened to him. Not to mention that if he spent 10 years reading, there is a chance that a lot of his sources contained incorrect or invalid information.

I would love to see where biologists praise this book in mass for its solid facts, because I'm having a hard time pinning down awards for it that don't involve it being about gay people.

He's gay

He wrote a book about gay animals

Does this satisfy?

I'm male. I have a penis. That makes me an expert on sex then?

[artificial]

I'm male. I have a penis. That makes me an expert on sex then?

No, but I'm willing to bet you're an expert on self masturbation.

[Zirae]

I'm male. I have a penis. That makes me an expert on sex then?

Are you like this in real life?

[iargue]

Are you like this in real life?

When it comes to a debate or discussion? Yes.

the name iargue doesn't come from my own choosing. My friends gave that to me years ago.

[Nymh]

I'm male. I have a penis. That makes me an expert on sex then?

The point that I was trying to make is that you decided on discrediting this book from the beginning, and despite all of the valid information you are being presented with you continue to undermine everything that is said about it. I don't understand why you do this. Why can nothing ever change your mind once it is made?

So, because you have ignored or invalidated every legitimate reason for this book to be considered written by an expert, I supplied an alternative, baser reason. Apparently that wasn't good enough either.

[luvsmyncis]

This is silly. It started off as a nice little idea of the world without religion, but now it's just got silly.

[iargue]

The point that I was trying to make is that you decided on discrediting this book from the beginning, and despite all of the valid information you are being presented with, you continue to undermine everything that is said about it. I don't understand why you do this. Why can nothing ever change your mind once it is made?

So, because you have ignored or invalidated every legitimate reason for this book to be considered written by an expert, I supplied an alternative, baser reason. Apparently that wasn't good enough either.

You haven't given me anything that shows to give me as a merit for this guy actually knows what hes talking about.

Did anyone verify all of his research to ensure it was factual? Did he go out and study animals for 10 years and experience them having gay sex?

No. What you have given me is that someone got a PHD in linguists, read a bunch of books, and wrote a book about those books.

Its impossible to change my mind until you provide me with something solid and factual that shows that something is actually valid. I refuse to believe in things simply because someone else says it. When you give me proof, actual proof, then I will believe it. We had a debate in IRC regarding a physics problem a year ago that lasted two days ago before Shadowlink64 provided me with solid explanation and proof about why it happened. At that point I admitted that I was wrong, and accepted the principle as a fact.

Everyone here just things that I am arrogant and ignorant and dismisses me right away. People who give me a chance to the end, end up understanding why it was so hard to convince me of something. This is why my teachers loved me (Except for the idiot who didn't know what she was doing) and why my employers love me. I always learn why something should be the right way or the answer, instead of just that it is the right answer.

[Sweeney]

Spending years reading doesn't signify that you actually understand what you read. I've dealt with plenty of people who have failed reading comprehension on books. Especially books that are hundreds of pages long, they get bored part way through and screw up. Clearly its impossible that this ever happened to him. Not to mention that if he spent 10 years reading, there is a chance that a lot of his sources contained incorrect or invalid information.

I would love to see where biologists praise this book in mass for its solid facts, because I'm having a hard time pinning down awards for it that don't involve it being about gay people.

Forgive me, but weren't you just saying that "all" this guy is an expert on is the English language? But now you're saying his reading comprehension probably isn't very good?
I can't imagine what it must be like to live with your brain.

You're not going to find biologists praising the book "en masse", because that's not how the literature works. It has, according to Google Scholar, been referenced over 350 times since publication.
You're probably also not going to find awards for it that don't concern the subject of the book... because that would be weird. It's also not about gay people, so I don't know where you're looking.

[artificial]

This is silly. It started off as a nice little idea of the world without religion, but now it's just got silly.

There should be a rule to prevent both iargue and Sweeney posting in the same thread.
(or just iargue). And that's my final dig at iargue in the thread.

[iargue]

Forgive me, but weren't you just saying that "all" this guy is an expert on is the English language? But now you're saying his reading comprehension probably isn't very good?
I can't imagine what it must be like to live with your brain.

You're not going to find biologists praising the book "en masse", because that's not how the literature works. It has, according to Google Scholar, been referenced over 350 times since publication.
You're probably also not going to find awards for it that don't concern the subject of the book... because that would be weird. It's also not about gay people, so I don't know where you're looking.

Actually Linguistics is the study of Language and its history. It seeks to understand how it was created, how it adapted, and how it is used. It does have a focus on grammar and syntax, so one would hope that he can read perfectly. But given that hes had 10 years of reading to do, your saying that there is zero chance that he got bored and skipped parts of a book?

Even if we give him credit that he didn't half ass his job, we still have no proof that the books that he read where entirely valid or factual. Or that the data that he writes about was entirely made up. The book is partly about homosexuality, but its also partly about biology. If it was in fact a biological study, shouldn't there be awards for its work in biology?

As for the fact that its been referenced 350 times in 10 years, is not even impressive in the slightest, nor does it guarantee its factual status. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be allowed for a source, but if you look at the discussion pages, its a group of people reading things and then putting them on the page. Some articles have thousands of sources, and yet universities refuse to accept it as a source, so why this work based upon books valid, but wikipedia is not?

[Sweeney]

Actually Linguistics is the study of Language and its history. It seeks to understand how it was created, how it adapted, and how it is used. It does have a focus on grammar and syntax, so one would hope that he can read perfectly. But given that hes had 10 years of reading to do, your saying that there is zero chance that he got bored and skipped parts of a book?

Incredible that you presume to give me a definition of linguistics, when I already provided one.
In fact, I provided the definition of linguistics that is taught by the University where the author got his Ph.D in linguistics.
Your arrogance in attempting to overrule it is astounding.

He didn't "have" ten years of reading to do. He chose to read everything available on animal homosexuality (and other sexualities, by the way), which took him ten years.
I would imagine that he had a break when he got bored of a paper, and picked it up again later.

Even if we give him credit that he didn't half ass his job, we still have no proof that the books that he read where entirely valid or factual. Or that the data that he writes about was entirely made up.

Well, that's part of a critical review. When you read a paper, you assess its methodology for yourself, and decide whether it appears valid, or whether there are systematic faults that affect its results.
Basically, what you're saying here could be applied to any piece of work ever; "You're just assuming that the author is honest".

The book is partly about homosexuality, but its also partly about biology. If it was in fact a biological study, shouldn't there be awards for its work in biology?

No. It's all about biology. It's also all about sexuality (though not specifically homosexuality).
It's a book about the biology of sexuality. To attempt to divorce the two is ridiculous.

The reason you can't find any awards for biological studies that the book won, is that it isn't a study, it's clearly a review text, for which, as far as I know, there are no awards.

As for the fact that its been referenced 350 times in 10 years, is not even impressive in the slightest, nor does it guarantee its factual status. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be allowed for a source, but if you look at the discussion pages, its a group of people reading things and then putting them on the page. Some articles have thousands of sources, and yet universities refuse to accept it as a source, so why this work based upon books valid, but wikipedia is not?

I love the fact that you can't distinguish between a work "being referenced" and references within a work.
The figure of 350+ relates to the number of times other authors have used the book as a cited reference. This is universally considered as a reliable measure of the worth and relevance of a piece of work.
Wikipedia is irrelevant.

Oh, and it's not based on books, it's based on primary literature. Original research. Scientific papers.
As you would know, if you'd even come within sixty feet of a secondary review in your entire life.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, let's bring it back a step.
Are you arguing:
a) that animals do not display non-heterosexual mating/companionship behaviours?
b) that this book specifically is inaccurate regarding non-heterosexual mating/companionship behaviours?
c) that you can't trust any books because the authors might be lying or confused?
d) something else entirely?

[iargue]

Actually, let's bring it back a step.
Are you arguing:
a) that animals do not display non-heterosexual mating/companionship behaviours?
b) that this book specifically is inaccurate regarding non-heterosexual mating/companionship behaviours?
c) that you can't trust any books because the authors might be lying or confused?
d) something else entirely?

I'm arguing that a book is being used as a scientific foundation without any proof that the matter is actually scientific. We have a person who has a PHD in a completely different school publishing a book, without providing any of the science to back it up, and its being widely accepted as a fact.

When someone with a PHD in a field does a research paper, they include their research, and it is reviewed by their peers before it is submitted as a fact. How can you rely on something that has had none of these things done to it? It was written and published and that is it?

If its related to biology, or sexuality, or anything else. IT would have been given awards from someone in those fields. Something that validates that its scientifically sound. The only thing that I see is lesbian/gay/bi/transgender rights awards.

[Nymh]

I'm arguing that a book is being used as a scientific foundation without any proof that the matter is actually scientific. We have a person who has a PHD in a completely different school publishing a book, without providing any of the science to back it up, and its being widely accepted as a fact.

When someone with a PHD in a field does a research paper, they include their research, and it is reviewed by their peers before it is submitted as a fact. How can you rely on something that has had none of these things done to it? It was written and published and that is it?

If its related to biology, or sexuality, or anything else. IT would have been given awards from someone in those fields. Something that validates that its scientifically sound. The only thing that I see is lesbian/gay/bi/transgender rights awards.

I'm sorry, who is the one that has actually read this book?