Hailed as “the biggest political science study” of 2014 and published in Science magazine, “When Contact Changes Minds” was destined to launch its authors to academic fame. Too bad the data were faked.
The study purported to demonstrate that door-to-door canvassers who targeted conservative voters could induce long-term attitudinal changes on the question of same-sex marriage through the use of sob stories, or what they called “heartfelt, reciprocal and vulnerable conversations.” It’s easy to see how the study appealed directly to the prejudices of the Left. When one proceeds from the assumption that opposition to same-sex marriage can only be explained by ignorance, then the obvious solution is to “educate” the rubes. If only these stupid old bigots knew more homosexuals they’d understand that “gays” are categorically nice people who suffer real harm from societal prejudice. A little human contact, a little “dialogue” and—voila!—mindless, heartless, bigotry melts away.
The study’s irregularities became apparent when graduate students at UC Berkeley attempted to replicate its results without success. This fact was brought to the attention of the study’s co-author, Professor Donald Green of Columbia University, who began to suspect that his research partner, PhD candidate Michael LaCour of UCLA, had fudged some of his numbers. (Professor Green joined the study only after the data had been collected.) With a little more digging it became apparent that the study was not just flawed but entirely bogus. The company that LaCour claims to have hired to collect the data, Qualtrics, says that they had no record of the project. When Green and Professor Lynn Vavreck, LaCour’s thesis adviser, confronted LaCour and asked to see his data, LaCour claimed that he had accidentally deleted the file from his computer, the twenty-first century equivalent of the old “dog ate my homework” excuse. This “scholar” was actually supposed to begin work as an assistant professor at Princeton this fall, which now appears unlikely.
“There was an incredible mountain of fabrications with the most baroque and ornate ornamentation,” said Donald Green of Michael LaCour. “There were stories, there were anecdotes, my drop box is filled with graphs and charts, you’d think no one would do this except to explore a very real data set.”
Or to make his work seem super sciencey. No one can doubt your conclusions when you’ve got science to back them up, which explains why homosexual activists nearly always buttress their questionable claims with chest-beating proclamations that the science is settled. Amazingly, it’s on their side… again! Isn’t it always?
I suppose that would depend on what you mean by “science.” If you mean an organized, methodological system for discerning truth through controlled experimentation conducted with no emotional interest whatsoever in the results, then no. But if you mean the scientific establishment, then I suppose that yes, Big Science is on the side of the homosexual movement, or more accurately, it’s in the tank for them. Once you understand this fact it becomes clear why Science magazine published the paper in the first place and why their much ballyhooed peer-review process didn’t spot this obvious fake a million miles away. How rigorous could their fact-checking have been?
It wasn’t always this way. There was a time when psychiatric experts actually classified homosexuality as a pathology. Apparently the experts were fallible in those dark ages, whereas now they’re not. After shrieking homosexual activists crashed a string of psychiatric conventions, the scientists decided, in 1973, to cave to their demands and remove same-sex attraction disorder (SSAD) from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). That’s how science is done, right? When an angry mob doesn’t like your findings, you change them.
Gone are the days when such histrionics are even necessary. Pressure tactics are rarely used anymore because infiltration of the sciences and outright fraud of the variety perpetrated by Michael LaCour work so much better.
Consider for a moment another study from the University of Melbourne that found that same-sex parents actually raise happier, healthier children. The study failed to meet even the most basic scientific standards. Here’s how they reached their foregone conclusion: the researchers placed advertisements for same-sex parents in “gay” magazines and forums, then asked the respondents questions about the health and welfare of their children. The respondents, knowing that they were being studied and why, were nearly unanimous that the kids were okay. No, they were better than okay! They were straight-A students and perfect junior citizens.
It’s science! Okay, so it’s not real science. It’s rainbow science, a shoddy imitation that isn’t bound by any of the old rules.
Rainbow science is actually older than you might expect. I would trace it back to at least 1948, when Alfred Kinsey, a bisexual professor at the University of Indiana, published his “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” often regarded as the first shot fired in the sexual revolution. The study came as a shock to American senses because it claimed that men routinely engage in sexual activities that were taboo at the time and some that are taboo even now. Kinsey’s “research” found that an astonishing 95 percent of men had broken sex crimes laws that merited prison time, thus transforming those who were actually in prison into unfortunate souls who had had the bad luck of getting caught. Surely the juries that convicted them were comprised almost entirely of hypocrites who secretly indulged the same desires. This was exactly Kinsey’s desired effect—to make the deviant seem normal and thus to transform traditional sexual mores into badges of hypocrisy. It should be noted that Kinsey was something of a pervert himself who engaged in or condoned pretty much every sexual aberration you’ve ever heard of and few you haven’t. Animals and children were fair game.
It was Kinsey who bequeathed to us the “one in ten” statistic—that a tenth of the population is homosexual, a lie that persists to the present day. His figures were almost certainly skewed by the fact that 20 to 25 percent of his subjects were incarcerated and “several hundred” were male prostitutes. In later years, Kinsey admitted that 50 to 75 percent of the inmates surveyed reported having some homosexual experience. With numbers like that, Kinsey’s “one in ten” estimate seems like a lowball figure. The actual percentage of homosexuals in society is probably about two to three percent, and that’s after forty years of promotional propaganda.
Rainbow science isn’t science, even if it’s peer-reviewed or appears in a highbrow journal. Any journal that would publish it is rubbish in my book. Yet rainbow science appears to be winning adherents with its fake studies, foregone conclusions, and unfalsifiable hypotheses. The trend ought to alarm the general public, not just “homophobes” like me. Anyone who believes that science has value should care about its perversion to serve an agenda, particularly one as sick as this.