Gayness May Be Linked to Conditions in Womb

[A.Saturnus]

Depends, did you actually do gnetic screenings ? If so, did you perform them yourself or where they done by someone trained in the matter ? If the latter, that's why there is cross-over between the sciences. Even so, this kind of research seems interdisciplinary, and if it's done by just one person trained ina certain area, I do have my doubts about its scientific merit (sorry Sat). It should at least have one biologist/bio engineer/medical doctor as a reviewer.

Hell, no, I just put mice in a swimming pool.
This paper was published in the third most important scientific journal in the world. I assume that it had a variety of reviewers from different fields. The general claim that peer-reviews aren't very good isn't enough basis not to do so.
What is it, because he is a psychologist, he may not even mention a hypothesis invented by an expert for sexuology? Yes, this kind of research is interdisciplinary, that's why he refers to the work of other scientists.

It's still totally different from what this guy did, he never checked biological data, apart from the amount of sons. If he had checked the mothers blood/placenta/whatever for a certain hormone or certain anti bodies and linked them to the child becoming gay he might have had a case, now all he puts forth is speculation.

He didn't check for hormones because that wasn't the subject of his study. It is however false to say that he didn't check biological evidence. He referred to several earlier studies that did present biological evidence. And at the last, putting forth speculation is an integral part of any scientific work.

[doc_bean]

Hell, no, I just put mice in a swimming pool.
This paper was published in the third most important scientific journal in the world. I assume that it had a variety of reviewers from different fields. The general claim that peer-reviews aren't very good isn't enough basis not to do so.
What is it, because he is a psychologist, he may not even mention a hypothesis invented by an expert for sexuology? Yes, this kind of research is interdisciplinary, that's why he refers to the work of other scientists.

Well if it decently reviewed then I'm okay with it, peer reviews aren't very good, especially in the 'lesser' magazines (some of the crap i've read...) but it's still the best method we have. Referring to conclusions mad ein other fields of science is of course allowed, although I hope they don't go quoting obscure articles to try and prove their point...

He didn't check for hormones because that wasn't the subject of his study. It is however false to say that he didn't check biological evidence. He referred to several earlier studies that did present biological evidence. And at the last, putting forth speculation is an integral part of any scientific work.

You read the actual scientific article, isn't fact checking in a backroom debate like cheating