whom i love :.)

Of course, I wouldn’t recommend this method for casual sex or non-committed relationships at all. And really, in this day and age, as others and NWSO always blogs about, get tested. The withdrawal method can work though. I never got pregnant until we decided we wanted to start a family.

the wise intellectual person thinks about it ,because a few moments of pleasure can cost you a life time of pain, i just dont understand why some people bring children in the world thats they dont know how or understand how to support, then destroy the childs life because of a problem they created from there sexual behavior, and then blame the child ,

then act crazy with the male or female they were with when he/ she doesnt want to be responisble for the child , well stupid you know a irresponisble person before you have sexual intercourse with them unprotected so why not use a rubber,

like snoopdogg said aint no lovin good enough to get burnt while youre up in it —–

why would you want to have unprotected sex with someone who sleeps around with everybody they aint good for nobody, they dont even respect there self, and why bring a child in the world with a moron and have a baby moron or worse a stds, use a rubber i dont agree with that pulling out stuff semen is liquid ,
liquids flow they go where ever they want unless in container a rubber
i went to school for studies in nucluer medicine and liquids

use your head be wise save your life and your organs there are infectious disease thats stds that arent common going around, and why have a child by someone you dont want or dont want to be with you only have one life . semen is a liquid form it goes where ever it pleases pulling out , not fast enough , it has to be contained use a condom

chicken all the time my passion is learning

I fail to see how you copying and pasting a wikipedia entry proves whether or not the study reaches true conclusions or not. If you read the article, it’s based on statistical analysis and surveys that would be accepted by anyone in the scientific community. Explain how this counts as anecdotal evidence. And given the stakes, if this were true, why wouldn’t there be an entire chorus of other researchers and scientists refuting the findings?

You can have sex – COMPLETELY UNPROTECTED, & EVERYTIME afterwards jump up & down 5 times, twirl around in circles, stand on your head, then run around the block nekkid & never ever ever get pregnant/get someone pregnant, or get any STD’s.

If this were the case, you’d likely attribute your crazy ritual to your “success” – when one had zero to do w/ the other.

THIS is one example of flawed logic, anecdotal evidence, & so on.

There is no reason for this kind of stupidity in 2009 in the US of A w/ all the access to info & resources we have. If you are going to rely on EVIDENCE – make sure it comes from recognized, respected, scientific sources. God help that poor child who ends up with the parent who thought “washing up” was going stop his seed from growing into a human life!

————

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE:

The expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example “my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99″ does not disprove the proposition that “smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age”. In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn’t follow from the “evidence”.

Evidence can be anecdotal in both senses: “Goat yogurt prolongs life: I heard that a man in a mountain village who ate only yogurt lived to 120.”

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the “person who” fallacy (”I know a person who…”; “I know of a case where…” etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a “typical” experience; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.

When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are banned in some jurisdictions.[citation needed] The term is also sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony. Psychologists have found that people are more likely to remember notable examples than typical examples[1].

———

In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:

* “information that is not based on facts or careful study”[2]
* “non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts”[3]
* “reports or observations of usually unscientific observers”[4]
* “casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis”[5]
* “information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically”

Anecdotal evidence can have varying degrees of formality. For instance, in medicine, published anecdotal evidence is called a case report, which is a more formalized type of evidence subjected to peer review.[6] Although such evidence is not regarded as scientific, it is sometimes regarded as an invitation to more rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon in question.[7] For instance, one study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of side effects were later sustained as “clearly correct.”[8]

Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as supporting evidence.

———-

Anecdotal evidence and faulty logic

Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.

Anecdotal evidence is also frequently misinterpreted via the availability heuristic, which leads to an overestimation of prevalence. Where a cause can be easily linked to an effect, people overestimate the likelihood of the cause having that effect (availability). In particular, vivid, emotionally-charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight. A related issue is that it is usually impossible to assess for every piece of anecdotal evidence, the rate of people not reporting that anecdotal evidence in the population.

A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization.[9] For example, here is anecdotal evidence presented as proof of a desired conclusion:

“There’s abundant proof that drinking water cures cancer. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. After drinking water she was cured.”

Anecdotes like this do not prove anything.[10] In any case where some factor affects the probability of an outcome, rather than uniquely determining it, selected individual cases prove nothing; e.g. “my grandfather smoked 40 a day until he died at 90″ and “my sister never went near anyone who smoked but died of lung cancer”. Anecdotes often refer to the exception, rather than the rule: “Anecdotes are useless precisely because they may point to idiosyncratic responses.”[11] Even when many anecdotes are collected to prove a point, “The plural of anecdote is not data.” (Roger Brinner)

More generally, a statistical correlation between things does not in itself prove that one causes the other (a causal link). A study found that television viewing was strongly correlated with sugar consumption, but this does not prove that viewing causes sugar intake (or viceversa).

In medicine anecdotal evidence is also subject to placebo effects[12]: it is well-established that a patient’s (or doctor’s) expectation can genuinely change the outcome of treatment. Only double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials can confirm a hypothesis about the effectiveness of a treatment independently of expectations.

Sites devoted to rhetoric[13] often give explanations along these lines:

Anecdotal evidence, for example, is by definition less statistically reliable than other sorts of evidence, and explanations do not carry the weight of authority. But both anecdotal evidence and explanations may affect our understanding of a premise, and therefore influence our judgment. The relative strength of an explanation or an anecdote is usually a function of its clarity and applicability to the premise it is supporting. [1]

By contrast, in science and logic, the “relative strength of an explanation” is based upon its ability to be tested, proven to be due to the stated cause, and verified under neutral conditions in a manner that other researchers will agree has been performed competently, and can check for themselves.

————–

Amen & Amen!!!

You are making no sense. And I can tell from your responses that you know it. Just too much pride to admit when another is right.