News and Events => Opinions & Editorials => Topic started by: Butterfly on March 01, 2011, 05:16:15 PM Return to Full Version
Title: Limits
Post by: Butterfly on March 01, 2011, 05:16:15 PM
Post by: Butterfly on March 01, 2011, 05:16:15 PM
Limits
A.E. Brain
By Zoe Brain
27 February, 2011
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2011/02/limits.html (http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2011/02/limits.html)
I've published a lot of data, papers in medical journals and the like, on the neuroscience of transsexuality. You'll find a partial list in the column on the left. Not cherry-picked, the picture is not as sharp as we might like, but not too bad.
My appreciation is that the data taken as a whole constitutes proof. Absolute proof? Well, there's almost no such thing in Science. Definitely not. Proof beyond "reasonable doubt"? Taking all the evidence together, I think so, yes. Proof "on the balance of probability"? Certainly, that was found by the Full Bench of the Australian Family Court as far back as 2003, when there was far less evidence than today.
But what about taking each piece of evidence individually, on its own? Is there a single, reliable touchstone? Adequate for a diagnosis, as conjectured by a New Scientist article I blogged about a month ago?
A.E. Brain
By Zoe Brain
27 February, 2011
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2011/02/limits.html (http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2011/02/limits.html)
I've published a lot of data, papers in medical journals and the like, on the neuroscience of transsexuality. You'll find a partial list in the column on the left. Not cherry-picked, the picture is not as sharp as we might like, but not too bad.
My appreciation is that the data taken as a whole constitutes proof. Absolute proof? Well, there's almost no such thing in Science. Definitely not. Proof beyond "reasonable doubt"? Taking all the evidence together, I think so, yes. Proof "on the balance of probability"? Certainly, that was found by the Full Bench of the Australian Family Court as far back as 2003, when there was far less evidence than today.
But what about taking each piece of evidence individually, on its own? Is there a single, reliable touchstone? Adequate for a diagnosis, as conjectured by a New Scientist article I blogged about a month ago?