Proposal: Is Pedophilia Pseudoscience?

[ancientregime]

I'm going to play the devils advocate on this and argue that Pedophilia is psuedo-science.

Standard rules apply or make a suggestion before we begin so the rules can be changed accordingly. I will make the final call, but I will be a fair and reasonable to any departure from the standard rules.

Before I accept a challege, I will be looking at your history of posts. If you have established yourself as a serious debator your chances will be increase I take you on.

 

[spidergoat]

The premise is ridiculous, it is neither science nor pseudoscience, it is a label we place on a certain kind of behavior.

 

[scott3x]

I'm going to play the devils advocate on this and argue that Pedophilia is psuedo-science.

Standard rules apply or make a suggestion before we begin so the rules can be changed accordingly. I will make the final call, but I will be a fair and reasonable to any departure from the standard rules.

Before I accept a challege, I will be looking at your history of posts. If you have established yourself as a serious debator your chances will be increase I take you on.

I think I see where you're coming from ancient, although I think your wording is off; is your 'devil's advocate' argument that the term 'pedophilia' is not a 'psychological disorder' as wikipedia puts it?

 

[Enmos]

I think he's saying that it doesn't really exist, because we use an artificial threshold age to define it. This is of course nonsense.

 

[James R]

I'm going to play the devils advocate on this and argue that Pedophilia is psuedo-science.

I don't know what you mean by this.

Are you saying pedophilia isn't real? Or that it is "normal"? Or what?

Nobody ever said it was a science.

I might be willing to debate you, but you'll have to explain what the debate will be about.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: 4 off-topic posts that attempted to debate the issue in the Proposal thread have been deleted. Members are advised to read the rules of the Formal Debates forum, available in sticky threads.

 

[draqon]

Pedophilia and issues resulting from it need to be analyzed from both socialogical and biological perspectives within human society. If enough ground is found behind pedophilia and its results, negative or perhaps positive, than it should be classified as science and not pseudoscience.

 

[ancientregime]

I agree the terms at this point are ambiguous. I think we should stipulate the definition of the terms in question to the satisfaction of those interested before the debate begins.

I propose that the definition of pedophilia used in this debate be the present definition in the DSM.[1]

I propose that the term pseudo-science be defined by the present definition existing in Wikipedia.[2]

Please offer any other links to definitions that you think may stipulate the terms better.

 

[ancientregime]

The premise is ridiculous, it is neither science nor pseudoscience, it is a label we place on a certain kind of behavior.

Yes, it is a label based upon behavior, but that label is also identified as fitting in a criminal and mental illness category by popular definitions. In order for pedophilia to fit into a criminal or mental illness category it must survive the scrutiny of science, otherwise the legal system and psychiatric definitions are faith based (pseudo-science).

I will be arguing that it cannot survive scientific scrutiny.

 

[ancientregime]

I think I see where you're coming from ancient, although I think your wording is off; is your 'devil's advocate' argument that the term 'pedophilia' is not a 'psychological disorder' as wikipedia puts it?

I will be arguing 'devils advocate' which is against popular opinion. To answer your question, yes, I will be arguing that it cannot be a 'psychological disorder' if put under scientific scrutiny.

 

[ancientregime]

I don't know what you mean by this.

Are you saying pedophilia isn't real? Or that it is "normal"? Or what?

Nobody ever said it was a science.

I might be willing to debate you, but you'll have to explain what the debate will be about.

I will argue it is not a real "disorder". I will argue that it is "normal".

I will argue that US law and the DSM definition use only a pseudo-scientific basis for establishing it as a crime and mental illness.

 

[ancientregime]

I am proposing the addition of a rule to ensure the debate has an air of formal logical clarity about it.

Proposed Rule: All arguments must follow a syllogism pattern. For example, each paragraph would contain two or more premises sentences followed by a conclusive sentence.

When it snows, the streets get wet. It is snowing. Conclusion: The streets are wet.

I think it will keep each sides arguments clearer and enable the other side to make better counter arguments.

 

[James R]

I will argue it is not a real "disorder". I will argue that it is "normal".

I will argue that US law and the DSM definition use only a pseudo-scientific basis for establishing it as a crime and mental illness.

I propose that the definition of pedophilia used in this debate be the present definition in the DSM.[1]

I propose that the term pseudo-science be defined by the present definition existing in Wikipedia.[2]

Ok. I'm willing to debate you on this - not because I have strongly held views on the issue but because I'm interested to hear your arguments.

On the other hand, because I claim no special interest or expertise here, I would be happy to defer to somebody more knowledgable, if there are any takers. I suggest we give it a couple of days before starting the debate thread, to see if anybody else wants to take this on - either to support you or to argue against.

I suggest that the topic to be debated should be: "That pedophilia is not a disorder."

You will start the debate, arguing the affirmative.

I think your requirement for syllogism is unnecessarily strict. Would you agree to debate according to the Standard Rules (see sticky thread in the Formal Debates forum)? If you want to alter anything, let me know and we can negotiate further.

 

[ancientregime]

I think your requirement for syllogism is unnecessarily strict. Would you agree to debate according to the Standard Rules (see sticky thread in the Formal Debates forum)? If you want to alter anything, let me know and we can negotiate further.

I think Roy Wood Sellars in his book Essentials of Logic [1] says describes the purpose of syllogism well:

When the purpose (purpose of syllogism) is the limited one of testing the consistency of a given argument, the syllogism is a valuable instrument. It offers a technique by which the argument can be analyzed and its parts seen in their mutual relations. We can decide whether all the elements of a complete argument are present, whether the terms are really only three in number, whether the middle term has the same meaning in the two premises, whether the conclusion follows, etc. In short, the syllogism and its theory presents the would-be analyst with satisfactory methods for his task. He knows what to demand and where the dangers lie. Relatively to this purpose, the syllogism can no more be outgrown than human though itself.

In order for an argument to be consistent with the scientific method [1], it must use arguments that are logical deduction (although deductive arguments may also have inductive properties). Syllogisms are the basis of logical deduction. Therefore, the use of syllogism based arguments is necessary to make an argument consistent with scientific method.

We have two choices in light of this:

1. spend time making solid clean syllogistic arguments, or
2. spend time trying to untangle the opponents mess only to have to put it into a deductive form to ensure we are understanding the other clearly.

If we have to untangle to opponents argument to ensure we understand them, we are doing the work of putting it into a clear deductive form (syllogism) for them. This is not the responsibility of the opponent. A deductive from will be necessary anyway. I say we get it out of the way with the use of syllogisms.

 

[ancientregime]

I suggest that the topic to be debated should be: "That pedophilia is not a disorder."

A statement representing the general argument, through the use of the word "disorder" it implies the inclusion of the psychiatric definition, but excludes the criminal aspect. I would like to included the criminal aspect.

In light of this, I would rephrase the topic to be:

Pedophilia is not a crime or mental illness.

But, there is one more important factor. Upon what basis are these conclusions arrived at? This is why I brought up the term pseudo-science.

I'm going to argue that pedophilia cannot be classified as crime or mental illness using the scientific method, but rather it can only be classified as a crime or mental illness through a faith based view, pseudo-science.

In light of this, I would rephrase the topic to be:

Pedophilia cannot be scientifically proven to be a mental illness or crime.

 

[ancientregime]

I am proposing the addition of a rule to ensure the debate has an air of formal logical clarity about it.

Proposed Rule: All arguments must follow a syllogism pattern. For example, each paragraph would contain two or more premises sentences followed by a conclusive sentence.



I think it will keep each sides arguments clearer and enable the other side to make better counter arguments.

I would also like to suggest three more rules extending from the standard rules: Time Extension, Stipulation Argument, and a Judge.

Time Extension
A debater may request an extension of time past the two day time limit. If the opponent agrees to the length of the extension, then the days of extension is granted. If the opponent disagrees, then the standard two day rule defaults. Any number of extension requests may be made during the two day period or granted extension.

Stipulation Argument
A debater may move for a stipulation argument. This forces the debate into a discussion involving an unclear term used by one of the debaters. A stipulation argument will begin something like this:

I am unclear with your use of the term abuse, would you please give me a definition?

I mean that it hurts someone.

Ok, so we both can agree that abuse must show some sign that a person is hurt?

Yes.

Both parties agree to the definition, so this is how the term is used. At this point the stipulation argument is over and the debate continues.

All posts made during a stipulation argument are not counted toward the maximum four posts. Once a stipulation argument begins it must end before the debate continues. Posts during a stipulation argument must be directed only at classifying a term in question; it is not a place to continue the main debate; it is not a place to make off-topic posts. To ensure the stipulation argument ends, the inclusion of a third party as a judge may be necessary. In the case of an impasse the judge will look over the argument of the term and make a final deductive argument for how the term is to be stipulated for the debate. Once both parties agree on how it will be used or in the case of intervention of a judge, each debater can change any part of their argument where the stipulated term causes a change in meaning. This may mean an argument in response may have to be edited.

Judge
A judge will be added as a third party for the debate. The primary purpose of a judge is to ensure a stipulation argument ends. Anyone interested in being a candidate for a judge must make it known in the proposal thread. Once the thread proposer picks an opponent, they must both agree upon a judge before the debate begins.

 

[Syzygys]

I suggest that the topic to be debated should be: "That pedophilia is not a disorder."

You will start the debate, arguing the affirmative.

Mind you, the affirmative would be: pedophilia IS a disorder.

Actually in this topic either side could start the debate...

 

[ancientregime]

Mind you, the affirmative would be: pedophilia IS a disorder.

Actually in this topic either side could start the debate...

Affirmative language is important for clarity, I agree. Thanks for getting us back on track.

I think the topic should be: Pedophilia is psuedo-science.

I will argue that US law and the DSM only use the term pedophilia in a psuedo-scientific way in terms classification of a mental illness and classification as a crime.

 

[scott3x]

Judge
A judge will be added as a third party for the debate. The primary purpose of a judge is to ensure a stipulation argument ends. Anyone interested in being a candidate for a judge must make it known in the proposal thread. Once the thread proposer picks an opponent, they must both agree upon a judge before the debate begins.

I volunteer to be a judge.

 

[Syzygys]

I think the topic should be: Pedophilia is pseudo-science.

Well, this sentence is meaningless, as Spidergoat pointed it out in post #2.

I will argue that US law and the DSM only use the term pedophilia in a psuedo-scientific way in terms classification of a mental illness and classification as a crime.

What you might trying to say could be:

- pedophilia is not a mental illness
- pedophilia is definition dependent
- the definition of pedophilia is not scientific, (it is age or society dependent)

So which one is it? If it is #3, you might be right, but a law doesn't need to be scientific, it just need to be based on society's concensus.

Also the law's and the DSM's definition of pedophilia can be different. Being gay was classified as a mental illness in the early 70s in the DSM, then society's attitude changed, so did the definition.