[RandoHolmes]

Maybe this particular study, but I have to say I believe it in general.

I remember working for a manufacturing company where I drove a forklift (during the summer).

One of my most vivid memories is walking into the breakroom and seeing on the television a scrolling banner that declared homosexual couples were less likely to have children than heterosexual couples.

And I remember everyone in that room laughing their asses off. And it's not as if no one in that room realized the reason for the study was so they could take into account things like adoption, etc. It's that the result was so obvious, even taking that into account, that it was amazing that someone was PAID to come to a conclusion that everyone knew without the money.

And this is the crux of the problem with "science". It wants to be "interesting", so it will literally try to drum up something against what "everyone knows".

So the idea that what everyone over generations "knows" is generally more applicable than "science" is not surprising at all.

[daveFNbuck]

A lot of the things that "everyone knows" are wrong. The point of science is to have a systematic way to tell the difference between things that seem intuitively true and things that are actually true.

I did a quick search and found a study about percentages of couples raising children [1]. They have a table by couple type and marital status. The difference isn't as stark as you might think.

Looking at the smallest difference in the table, married female/female partnerships have a 30.2% chance of currently raising children, while married male/female partnerships have a 38.7% chance. Is it obvious to you that this would be so close? Would you be surprised if there were countries where the numbers are reversed?

[1] https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/same-sex...

[handmodel]

I also doubt that the point of the study was to find out which type of couple had "more" children - even if that is what the news picked up.

It is obviously important for population and demographic research to know just how age, type of couple, divorce, income, etc. effects family size with actual estimates.

[heavenlyblue]

The issue is that you don't really need a study to open up a table of statistics in demographics department.

Your post just did a study on that topic. Should you get funded for that?

[im3w1l]

The qualitative factor is obvious. But the quantitative may hit that sweet spot. Studying just how many fewer children they have and how that interplays with free time, work and wealth. Or how the decreased contact with the younger generation changes your worldview and psychology.

[X6S1x6Okd1st]

The scientific process should actually result in people verifying things that seem obvious all the time. Admitting that you might be wrong and checking it even though it seems obvious was a major factor in starting to really increase the density of correct knowledge.

[RandoHolmes]

How can we know that eggs are tasty unless a 3rd party tells us!

I won't quote the science, I'll simply say that things are knowable outside of a system...

[SubiculumCode]

Criticizing scientific research by reading a news report is like criticizing a computer by asking your great-parent's opinion about the command line.

[kenjackson]

But still 41% didn’t think it would replicate. Proving a result to 41% of the population still seems useful.

[RandoHolmes]

You pulled those numbers out of your ass...

The truth is that 99% of the population believes that homosexual couples will have less children then heterosexual...

The surprising result for the uneducated? That homosexual couples have any children...

[dominotw]

> Maybe this particular study, but I have to say I believe it in general.

recursion :D