"Credit" for hypothesis?

[Edmond Zedo]

Sigh.

I have no problem with the definitions you are using for your types. I have a problem with how you are applying them, how there is no confirmation that the application is accurate, and with all of the other gaps in your hypothesis regarding typing people based on facial features alone (as I've already posted about like four times).

 

Further, you've already negated your own hypothesis by conceding that identical twins can have different personality types... hence, facial features are not an accurate indicator.

 

There's really nothing left to discuss at this point.

So don't. I've already responded to all of the above, repeatedly. Firstly, I said the operational definition of S/N is what the experiments would be based on, not some ethereal idea of mine about what they really are. Second, I said that I don't have personal knowledge of identical twins with an S/N pref. difference. Third, I said that I only suppose the physical traits are trends. Enough said indeed.

 

Fine, you 'got him'. Can you relate to the criticism, now, though? I'm quite intrigued to see how you thought these problems through, seeing as some of them seem to make this claim unfalsifiable (as was pointed out multiple times).

Yeah, above.

 

There are 148 posts in teh thread, Edmond. Ignoring the ones where we put up our criticism doesn't mean the criticism doesn't exist.. We pointed out a few times how your claim leaves too much room for bias, and how it seems to be unfalsifiable.

 

Can you answer these?

No, I'm well aware of all of your criticism, such as that equivalent to a., "It's too much like phrenology to even be thought about." And b., "A hypothesis must be supported by evidence."

 

Which I've already quite cleanly dealt with, by saying, firstly, that a., That's an appeal to ignorance, and hardly how discoveries are made, and b., A hypothesis is a hypothesis because it's not supported by evidence, yet.

Edmond Zedo,

 

 

So there is no particular aspect of the typing process, that correlates to brow-nose appearance? Just the final result of the typing process that correlates to brow-nose?

 

So, if your observations are true, I could give you some nose shapes and sizes, some brow shapes and sizes, and you could tell me what? about each nose-brow pair.

 

Regards, TAR

I can type through photos, sometimes, but it's far from reliable. At this point, I couldn't make a reasonable guess at someone's type if you only gave me some physical measurements.

 

This is fatally flawed. If there are any commonalities due to other causes, these will cause correlations independent of facial characteristics. You can't ignore this, as you have proposed. You need a falsification method that's valid.

There are commonalites due to other causes, but those should be insignificant after isolation. For example, if 150 people are tested for type, and some physical dimension is measured, there either will or won't be an apparent relationship between the two.

[mooeypoo]

Which I've already quite cleanly dealt with, by saying, firstly, that a., That's an appeal to ignorance, and hardly how discoveries are made, and b., A hypothesis is a hypothesis because it's not supported by evidence, yet.

Right, okay, you weren't asked to bring definitive evidence, or even non-definintive evidence, you were asked to answer the criticism about your hypothesis.

 

The criticism that shows your hypothesis to be nonfalsifiable and allow too much room for selective data and confirmation bias. If your hypothesis is nonfalsifiable or allows for too much room for confirmation bias or selective data, it's not scientific.

 

We've been over this, though. And you still didn't answer the claims.

 

~moo

[tar]

Edmond Zedo,

 

So what fact are you thinking the testing of this hypothesis might bring to light?

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edmond,

 

I have been considering your hypothesis since you expressed it, and reading up on Jung and related stuff, and trying to put many aspects of the recent discussions I have read and been a part of here in the psuedoscience section, and iNow's "religion hijacks" thread, together.

 

I go by a simple rule. Things have to fit together. There are no gaps in reality. Just gaps in our understanding of it. When the "our" refers to one persons understanding, the gaps are greater, than when the "our" refers to all of humanity.

 

I can (and have) had insights that filled gaps in my understanding, that I have subsequently found out were gaps, already filled by others. Filled by putting together, in the logical manner, facts arrived at, by using the objectivity of the scientific method.

 

As much as you may be smart, and observant, and a great knower and logic master, you are not listening to the critisisms leveled at you, concerning your failure to adhere to the tenents of the scientific method.

 

Science is not concerned with filling gaps in your understanding, except to teach you what is already known.

 

Science is concerned with filling gaps in its understanding by arriving at facts and weaving them into their proper place in a thusly enhanced total picture.

 

To find a "new" fact, that will enhance the total picture, you have to work with what is already known.

 

If it is a new fact to you, then you can use what ever method you like to arrive at it.

 

If it is a new fact to science, you have to arrive at it using the scientific method.

 

The people here, (my self excluded) know the scientific method and know how new facts are arrived at. They are not saying that you might not be seeing some glimmer of a new fact. They are telling you how to bring it into focus. You should listen.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited October 4, 2009 by tar
Consecutive posts merged.

[Edmond Zedo]

We've been over this, though. And you still didn't answer the claims.

Of course we've been over it, and of course I've answered them, but the problem is that we're arguing different things. I'm arguing that I've come up with ideas which should be tested, and you're effectively saying "But I don't like your ideas." Which is irrelevant, and of absolutely no concern to me.

 

For the I-don't-know-how-manieth-time, I'm not trying to convince anyone it's accurate here, with respect to science. That's impossible, and laughable, because people typing to each other on the net is not science.

 

Edmond Zedo,

 

So what fact are you thinking the testing of this hypothesis might bring to light?

I've said that before: It may demonstrate a biological foundation for the types. Which, in turn, would validate 16-type, which, in turn, would please me.

I can (and have) had insights that filled gaps in my understanding, that I have subsequently found out were gaps, already filled by others. Filled by putting together, in the logical manner, facts arrived at, by using the objectivity of the scientific method.

 

As much as you may be smart, and observant, and a great knower and logic master, you are not listening to the critisisms leveled at you, concerning your failure to adhere to the tenents of the scientific method.

 

Science is not concerned with filling gaps in your understanding, except to teach you what is already known....

I'm certainly not looking for philosophical understanding here, and forgive me for saying it seems that would be a fool's errand. I'm interested in science as a tool, not as a fetish.

 

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." --Albert Einstein

 

...If it is a new fact to science, you have to arrive at it using the scientific method.

Hence my interest in science.

 

Add: And please tell me how I failed to adhere to the "tenets of the scientific method" by merely stating a hypothesis. I can assure you it's impossible, because I haven't.

 

The people here, (my self excluded) know the scientific method and know how new facts are arrived at. They are not saying that you might not be seeing some glimmer of a new fact. They are telling you how to bring it into focus. You should listen.

Some are presenting useful information, but those exchanges have been short, because there is no needless conflict. The continuing, useless exchanges here have been based on irrelevant opinion, which I only respond to as a matter of pride.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Edmond Zedo

[tar]

I'm certainly not looking for philosophical understanding here, and forgive me for saying it seems that would be a fool's errand. I'm interested in science as a tool, not as a fetish.

 

I take great offense at that statement, on several diffent levels.

 

Edmond Zedo, I divorce thee.

 

Disregards

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I divorce thee, I divorce thee

[CharonY]

Geez, this is a long thread. I really do not have the time to read through all of this but it appears to me that its intended to be an early form of a research proposal.

In this case it has to be scrutinized more carefully than a regular hypothesis that one just throws in as one of the function of a proposal is to demonstrate the relevance of the work to be conducted. As such, strong background information (aka preliminary results and literature data) that support the central hypotheses of the proposal are essential.

Of course, it cannot be expected that posts on a forum will equal a research proposal of any level. Nonetheless if let students write a short proposal of any kind, I expect roughly the following elements:

Background: what is the problem/question to be answered, to what is it related and what is new about it? Which knowledge gap is there?

Central hypothesis: what is the proposal based on? What is the rationale behind it and what supports the hypothesis?

Specific aims: How do they relate to the central hypothesis and how do they answer the proposed questions.

 

There have been a lot of comments already and as mentioned, I have not read them all.

But based on the initial post there is little evidence that supports the assumption (or central hypothesis) that perception preference correlates with certain facial features.

As noted, proposals need a basis and this is not provided sufficiently in the post.

The remainder of the post deals with specific without establishing the basis first. In other words, you would first have to find good reasons for your central point before more detailed analysis would begin to make sense.

In other words, unless you find literature data, you would have to design an experiment that would demonstrate that there is a strong correlation with perception type and facial features. This requires a very strong design that would account for any number of confounding factors, utilizes the right statistics etc.

The problem is that in the remainder of the post you already jump to possible mechanisms without establishing the basis first. Research generally takes small steps to succeed.

Edited October 4, 2009 by CharonY

[swansont]

There are commonalites due to other causes, but those should be insignificant after isolation. For example, if 150 people are tested for type, and some physical dimension is measured, there either will or won't be an apparent relationship between the two.

 

How do you establish cause? Could there be a genetic expression that influences behavior that also manifests itself with physical changes, independent of the cranial attributes? What about cultural biases in the samples, where a physical attribute is treated differently by different groups?

 

Also: a sample size of 150 is too small by at least a factor of 10, and probably a factor of 100. You have 16 types. The possibility of getting fewer than 10 of a type is way too small to be statistically meaningful. If your effect is small, you need a large sample.

 

 

edit: now that I think some more, racial/cultural differences is the test you want. If the cause is physiological, there should be a difference that crosses cultural boundaries.

Edited October 4, 2009 by swansont

[iNow]

As noted, proposals need a basis and this is not provided sufficiently in the post.

 

The remainder of the post deals with specific without establishing the basis first.

 

<...>

 

The problem is that in the remainder of the post you already jump to possible mechanisms without establishing the basis first.

This nicely summarizes one of my biggest issues with all of this, as I've pointed out in numerous posts already.