Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel
From: greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Uproar over challenge to campus date-rape study
Message-ID: <1991May31.195050.12567@netcom.COM>
Date: 31 May 91 19:50:50 GMT
Sender: news@aero.org
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 39
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org


The article, by a Cal Berkeley social welfare professor, which 
challenges the findings of a campus date-rape study has caused
a tremendous media uproar.
 
I've been very disappointed with the type of uproar that it has
caused, however. Whereas the article is purported to challenge
the quality of the "science" used in the original study, virtually
none of those who are objecting to it seem, at least so far, to
be willing to step up to the author's premise: that the original
study is flawed, was designed with a particular agenda in mind,
and is therefore not "good science." The author, with many others,
has difficulty believing the numbers, but unlike others has given
some possibly sound arguments for why they may be invalid.
 
One "expert" who was interviewed stressed her disappointment that
this had come from a professor specializing in "social welfare."
The answer, of course, is that it is his job and his charter to
evaluate research on its merits, regardless of whether that research
supports a particular political or social agenda.
 
Another one, an attorney specializing in rape victims, did little 
more than get into a "yes it is/no it isn't" discussion.
 
What disappoints me most, though, is that instead (or even in
addition to) discussing the scientific merits of the article,
so many self-appointed "spokespersons" for women seem to be
treating a challenge to the scientific quality of a study 
which supports their position as some sort of affront.
 
It makes me wonder if these people want accurate information,
or any information accurate or inaccurate which supports their
position.
 
This strikes me as a classic case of politics attempting to bully
science.

 
Greg