Circumcision “researchers” aren’t looking for a cure to a disease. While in any other case, science is meant to outdate itself, make itself obsolete, #circumcision “research” seeks to make a contested, ancient ritual permanent and indispensable. In short, it’s pseudoscience. #i2
-
-
Is the point of science to find newer, better ways to do things? Or to keep things the way they are? It should be obvious by now that the ongoing quest to vindicate
#circumcision is pseudoscience. It’s no different than “researchers” publishing the “merits” of bloodletting.#i2 -
Other questions arise. How would we treat “research” and “trials” to find “medical benefits” in
#FGM? And how would we treat “studies” that actually found them?#i2 http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2017/08/does-female-genital-mutilation-have-health-benefits-the-problem-with-medicalizing-morality/ … -
It looks like some people will not have any of it. Yes, talk about “expectations.”
#i2https://allafrica.com/stories/201106280259.html … -
Joseph, why does society trust ANYTHING researchers say, then? And you do know these studies actually represent the medical statuses of/responses from women, right? Why don’t you understand women exist who SAY they’re not mutilated and ARE NOT? Women are right about THEIR bodies.
-
That’s the problem with “research.” We have gotten to a point where anything can be made “true” or “unquestionable” if we say “research says.”
#i2 -
People seem to forget papers get retracted. You do know this happens right? That’s the story of science’s life; replacement of newer, better information.
#i2
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.