FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-13-2003, 10:12 PM   #281
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by brighid
Now isn't that a bit silly? If you cannot make any sort of determination as to what is an acceptable standard of proof you cannot come to any sort of valid conclusion about anything, and you surely cannot ever expect to reasonably support any point you have if you won't even develop sound criteria as to proof.
I'm not talking about ME coming to a conclusion, I'm talking about US collectively coming to a conclusion. If we can't agree on a standard of proof, one opinion is as good as another's as regards which side is correct.

Quote:
Awhhh ... but it's just too much fun
Hey, if you're happy, I'm happy.

Quote:
Empirical data is a better foundation to begin with then supposition!
I submit that neither is particularly trustworthy.

Quote:
Yes, I could claim that it is biased in some way or somehow unsound if I could determine that the methodology and/or conclusions of your evidence were in fact biased, or unsound. If however, you provided me with empirical evidence that I could not find flaw with I would, at the very least, be put in a position to more closely consider your position.
What you ask for, fatherphil provided earlier.

Quote:
I am sorry, if you were in my position that would be inclined to such things.
I'm sure as heck honored to meet a human being with no intellectual bias.

Quote:
Morally speaking, if you are so set on a position you owe it to yourself to employ the methods of intellectual integrity and carefully consider all the evidence and weigh it, even if it doesn't agree with your tightly held opinions.
In theory that would be correct, save for the fact that you and I don't agree on what constitutes "methods of intellectual integrity".

Quote:
Absolutely not! If you are able to prove your position to be correct I would be forced to concede, at least in part, that your position is correct.
I don't know that proving such a thing is possible with the means at our mutual disposal...or at least, I doubt very much that I can do it.

Quote:
Unfortunately that was because many people have limited information and were dogmatically opposed to anything that didn't fit their "traditional" world view. His position gained merit because the evidence could no longer be ignored.
Hey - maybe we're at the same point in the collective learning curve that society was in Galileo's time.

Quote:
Ah, such loaded statements! I do not place faith in science. Science is able to clearly demonstrate things to me so I may KNOW and no believe without evidence. It's all about the evidence and being open to being proved wrong, which is at the very heart of scientific inquiry.
In the hard sciences that is much more true. As for sciences like sociology...well, as C.S. Lewis put it, "There are no sciences like sociology".
yguy is offline  
Old 07-13-2003, 11:53 PM   #282
Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada. Finally.
Posts: 10,155
Default

Originally posted by yguy
Ooooooohhh, a wiseguy, huh?

Sauce for the goose.

Maybe?? Why the equivocation?

Because I would prefer not to make statements that I can't back up with evidence.

Amonng other things, they need to love the child enough to protect them with their life, and to put up with the child's stupidity when it happens.

The latter qualification is your opinion on what makes a person the best for the job. It may not be everyone else's.
Queen of Swords is offline  
Old 07-14-2003, 12:21 PM   #283
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Originally posted by yguy
Ooooooohhh, a wiseguy, huh?

Sauce for the goose.
My culinary skills are nothing to rave about, but I believe cooking a goose requires heating it to some point above room temperature, does it not?

Quote:
Maybe?? Why the equivocation?

Because I would prefer not to make statements that I can't back up with evidence.
Your intellectual dishonesty is as well hidden as a rotting corpse in a solarium at high noon on a summer day.

Quote:
Amonng other things, they need to love the child enough to protect them with their life, and to put up with the child's stupidity when it happens.

The latter qualification is your opinion on what makes a person the best for the job.
The parent shouldn't put up with the child's stupidity? What's the alternative, other than throwing it out of the house?
yguy is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 05:57 AM   #284
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Default

Quote:
Although the setting of the care (home/center/relative's home) did not alter the results, the quality of the care did. Higher quality child care was associated with increased maternal sensitivity. The authors' submit two possible explanations for this finding: (1) higher quality care settings may provide mothers with positive role models for involved, sensitive interactions with their child, and, (2) the greater maternal sensitivity is a function of the effect of the higher quality child care on the child's emerging verbal skills, behavior compliance and social competence.
I don't see anything in the studies you posted that doesn't actually support the position that children are not significantly harmed by day care. Quality has been brought up many times and again it seems the quality of parenting seems to be THEE central issue regardless if both parents work, or one parent stays home.

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 07:34 AM   #285
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: burbank
Posts: 758
Default

Day Care and Ear, Nose, and Throat Problems


Who is in day care?

The 2000 census reported that of among the nation's 19.6 million preschoolers, grandparents took care of 21 percent, 17 percent were were cared for by their father (while their mother was employed or in school); 12 percent were in day care centers; nine percent were cared for by other relatives; seven percent were cared for by a family day care provider in their home; and six percent received care in nursery schools or preschools. More than one-third of preschoolers (7.2 million) had no regular child-care arrangement and presumably were under maternal care.

Day care establishments are defined as those primarily engaged in care of infants or children, or in providing pre-kindergarten education, where medical care and/or behavioral correction are not a primary function or major element. Some may or may not have substantial educational programs, and some may care for older children when they are not in school.

What are your child’s risks of being exposed to a contagious illness at a day care center?

Medline, a service of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, reports that day care centers do pose some degree of an increased health risk for children, because of the exposure to other children who may be sick.

When your child is in a day care center, the risk is greatest for viral upper respiratory infection (affecting the nose, throat, mouth, voice box) and the common cold, ear infections, and diarrhea. Some studies have tried to link asthma to day care. Other studies suggest that being exposed to all the germs in day care actually IMPROVES your child's immune system.

Studies suggest that the average child will get eight to ten colds per year, lasting ten - 14 days each, and occurring occurring primarily in the winter months. This means that if a child gets two colds from March to September, and eight colds from September to March, each lasting two weeks, the child will be sick more than over half of the winter.

At the same time, children in a day care environment, exposed to the exchange of upper respiratory tract viruses every day, are expected to have three to ten episodes of otitis media annually. This is four times the incidence of children staying at home.
fatherphil is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 08:56 AM   #286
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Default

Quote:
At the same time, children in a day care environment, exposed to the exchange of upper respiratory tract viruses every day, are expected to have three to ten episodes of otitis media annually. This is four times the incidence of children staying at home.
Well, DUH! They are exposed to a greater number of germs because they are exposed to a greater number of children. Children of this age, whether they are at home or in day care are relative germ incubators. The problem with the above is that it says they are "expected" to have such things, but where is the information stating that they actually contract these illnesses at four times the rate of children at home? Furthermore as the piece mentions, many studies conclude that exposure to common childhood illnesses creates stronger immune systems in children.

A child has to be severely ill to have cold or flu symptons for 14 days in a row. Children are generally resilent and spend far less time being ill then adults with the exact same cold, flu, etc. Any parent can attest to that.

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 09:14 AM   #287
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: burbank
Posts: 758
Default

are you asking for the study that shows that there is a positive correlation between exposure to germs and contracting illness from them?
fatherphil is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 09:19 AM   #288
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: burbank
Posts: 758
Default

August 11, 2000
Web posted at: 5:42 PM EDT (2142 GMT)


From staff and wire reports

CHICAGO (CNN) -- A substantial number of crib deaths take place in day care settings, where caretakers may be less likely know the importance of putting babies to sleep on their backs, according to a new study.

Appearing in the journal Pediatrics, the study of 1,916 SIDS deaths in 11 states found a much higher than expected rate of sudden infant deaths in day care -- about 20 percent.

"If you look at Census Bureau statistics for the number of children who are in child care, you would expect the rate to be about 7 percent -- certainly less than 10 percent," said Dr. Rachel Moon, a pediatrician at Children's National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and the study's lead author.


Especially troubling, she added, was a finding of children placed on their stomachs by caretakers, more than half were usually put to sleep on their backs by their parents.

Just last month, the Consumer Product Safety Commission launched a 10-year "Safe Sleep" campaign to help lower SIDS rates, particularly among African-Americans, who, surveys show, are more likely to put babies down on their sides or stomachs to sleep

The newest study noted that about a third of the SIDS deaths took place during the first week in child care. In addition, 60 percent of SIDS deaths happened in day care homes, which tend to be unlicensed and run by older women who have less access to pediatricians or medical information about ways to reduce SIDS risk.

"This study is the most important study that has been completed since we made the recommendation that all babies should be placed on their backs to sleep," said Dr. M. Edward Keenan, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics' task force on infant positioning and SIDS and a former academy president.

The highest risk period for SIDS is for infants between the ages of two and five months, which coincides with the time many mothers return to work, noted Dr. John Kattwinkel, chairman of the academy's SIDS task force.

"It's just one other bid of evidence from a national health standpoint that tells us we ought to be educating day care centers and grandparents, as well as parents" about the importance of putting babies down to sleep on their backs, Kattwinkel said.

Phipps Cohe, spokeswoman for the SIDS Alliance, said all child care providers should be required to have education on SIDS risk reduction.

Census figures show that about 17 percent of children under the age of 1 are in some kind of child care setting, Moon said.

Parents need to make their expectations known, in writing as well as verbally.

"You need to talk to them about sleep position, just as you would talk to them about what your baby is eating," Moon said.
fatherphil is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 09:35 AM   #289
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Default

Quote:
are you asking for the study that shows that there is a positive correlation between exposure to germs and contracting illness from them?
Yes. Exposure to germs, especially during the infant and toddler years helps to develop a strong immune system for adolescence and adulthood. Also, when you site an article, please include the link. If you could please go back and in the studies/articles you have recently posted please edit in those links.

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 09:37 AM   #290
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: burbank
Posts: 758
Default

but do they not also get sick more frequently from the said exposure?
fatherphil is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:50 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.