
@article{ref1,
title="Can pedophiles change? Response to opening arguments and conclusions",
journal="Current sexual health reports",
year="2018",
author="Cantor, James M. and Fedoroff, J. Paul",
volume="10",
number="4",
pages="213-220",
abstract="<p>Can Pedophiles Change? Rejoinder  In theory, this should be a very short response. As already noted in my opening comment, there is currently no evidence to suggest that pedophiles become non-pedophiles, either spontaneously or with treatment, and all it would take to change my mind would be such evidence coming forth. Because Fedoroff’s opening comment neither provides nor cites any such evidence, I have little new to add.  Nonetheless, ending here would rob us of another opportunity—the chance to review the rules of logic, already supplied with a fulsome set of examples of violations. Although most people are familiar with basic good reasoning, most of us also experience a certain, “That logic doesn’t sound right, but I can’t put a finger on why....” With only a brief review, however, one can quickly become proficient at identifying and avoiding many of the most common logical fallacies.  One of the most common ones has a long name that sounds like a Harry Potter spell: argumentum ad...</p> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1548-3584",
doi="10.1007/s11930-018-0167-0",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11930-018-0167-0"
}