"These findings suggest that reduction in sexual partners and abstinence among unmarried sexually inexperienced youth (particularly in urban areas and in mails), rather than condom use, are the relevant factors in reducing HIV incidence." (page 2)
Here's the article.
On a side note...
When reading a scientific article it is important to have a clear understanding of how science actually works. Presenting a single article and saying "There, that proves it!" does not work. The scientific method requires that results be repeatable. So, more literature should back up a claim. But even that can fail, because science is fueled by research, and research by grants, and grants are money. That may be a run-on sentence, but the point is: scientists have a bottom line, too.
So, when you read a science article think of science as trying to be less wrong than the other guy. And think of it in the greater picture. A single article must be in context, and unless the date is within the last few years, you should look at the entirety. That's why research takes so long.
The Pope wrote many years ago that pure objectivity is denied to man in this world. Even the most honest scientist brings with him into his experiment his prejudices, . . . .
ReplyDelete@Cha - I'm not sure what your point is. On the extreme end of interpretation, you're saying we can't trust science because of scientists' prejudices. To that I say, we do the best with what we have. There's no disagreement that there have been exponential scientific advances in the last hundred years. Science is peer-reviewed and a process, like CJ says. Eventually enough peer-review and repetition leads to acceptance as fact.
ReplyDeleteTom, all I am saying is we need to be careful of dogmatic scientists who insist that either we agree with them ("for there is a general consensus") or we are all Luddites. What is truly, very, really, really real is not verifiable or quantifiable -- think of love, meaning, being, purpose, . . .
Delete@CJ - Don't worry, I realize that finding sources on the internet and posting them as evidence doesn't solve the issue for eternity. I understand peer-review. We're having a light-hearted internet debate and I understand that there is a low probability of view-reversal on either of our parts. I'll do my best to keep up (and really, I don't do anything at work, so I have plenty of time).
ReplyDelete