December 5, 2004
YOU GIVE THEM THE THEORY THEY'LL MANUFACTURE YOUR EVIDENCE:
Paedophilia thesis comes under fire: Doctorate could justify child sex, say abuse experts (Matthew Taylor, December 2, 2004, The Guardian
An academic awarded a doctorate by Glasgow University for his thesis which described sex between adults and children as sometimes positive was criticised last night by child abuse experts.Richard Yuill said his research, based on interviews with paedophiles and their victims, "challenged the assumption" that sexual relations between adults and under-16s were inherently abusive.
"The conclusions are that in such relationships I think you've got the good, the bad and the ugly, and that's where I stand on that," he said in the Times Higher Education Supplement.
But child abuse experts said his thesis would play into the hands of paedophiles who justified their actions by claiming their victims were willing participants.
Chris Harrison, a senior lecturer in social work at Warwick University said: "Whatever his intention, one of the things we know about sexual offenders is that they seize on this kind of thing and use it to support their position."
Mr Yuill, who was awarded his doctorate this week, interviewed paedophiles by describing himself as a "boylover" and said his work could challenge the law which states that children under 16 are incapable of giving informed consent to sex with adults.
Wow, research that finds precisely the results the scientist was looking for--wonders never cease. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 5, 2004 1:14 PM
"(R)esearch that finds precisely the results the scientist was looking for"...is not science.
Posted by: Brandon at December 5, 2004 2:10 PMA lot of ancient Greek academics would agree with these findings.
Posted by: carter at December 5, 2004 2:53 PMI'm not sure why we're picking on the research. It is obviously correct. Some minors under 16 are capable of giving informed consent. Not every single act of adult/child love down through the millenia has been devastating to the child. So what? Why does that have any implications at all for our ability to make this behavior criminal, or to legislate for the rule rather than the exception?
(By the way: Brit and Jeff, I'm struggling mightily not to say...no, mustn't say it...must overcome my nature...)
Posted by: David Cohen at December 5, 2004 3:48 PMOJ, that's silly.
Posted by: Brandon at December 5, 2004 3:58 PMI'll do it for David. In other words, he told us so.
Posted by: h-man at December 5, 2004 5:13 PMIsn't it well established that people tell interviewers what they think the interviewer wants to hear? If a guy tells the people he's interviewing he's a "boy-lover," isn't he going to hear pro-pedophilia ideas?
I do agree that the "social sciences" as currently practiced are not deserving of the name sciences. This sort of interviewing is not science.
Posted by: pj at December 5, 2004 6:28 PMDavid:
Well done. And you're right, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
Lots of minors might also genuinely enjoy a beer and never grow up to be alcoholics. Doesn't affect the principle of the law in the least.
Posted by: Brit at December 6, 2004 8:05 AMAnd the alternative is supposed to be what -- priests?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 6, 2004 1:03 PMOrrin, you've made a logical flaw. (There's probably a Latin name for it but I don't know it.) Just because a researcher's conclusions match what he wanted to find is not a prima facie case that they're not true. And I know the Latin name for your other logical flaw: ad hominem. Just because a researcher is an evil bastard--and this guy certainly sounds like an evil bastard--isn't a case for his research being untrue.
Posted by: Rick Perlstein at December 6, 2004 7:38 PMRick:
Actually it is a prima facie case, though the research could be true despite his prejudices.
Posted by: oj at December 6, 2004 10:09 PM