3 ms·

"no consensus" in this case means that researchers have claimed different things in the past. If you can form a hypothesis which is falsifiable by a repeatable

"no consensus" in this case means that researchers have claimed different things in the past. If you can form a hypothesis which is falsifiable by a repeatable experiment, then it is by definition science. This paper is clearly science. You may still doubt the conclusions, but the aspects you are attacking seem kinda besides the point/plain wrong.

zzzcpan 7y ago
That's the thing, you can't make a falsifiable hypothesis here, because "bilingual advantage" is subjective, bordering on defining the purpose of life to become objective.
- funklute 7y ago
  hummm.... I partly agree with you now. I don't agree that "bilingual advantage" is necessarily subjective per se. But if you were to say "the conclusions are only valid insofar as the chosen metrics to measure are representative of an underlying bilingual advantage" - then I would totally agree. I guess my view is that this latter question is very subtle, and something for a domain expert to gauge. I'm not in a position to gauge it, and this is the point where I do to some degree have to trust the peer-review process, as flawed as it may be!
- cstrahan 7y ago
  > because "bilingual advantage" is subjective Yes, without any further qualifications, "bilingual advantage" is subjective... but then you're making a straw man argument. Here's that quote again: > Because of enduring experience of managing two languages, bilinguals have been argued to develop superior executive functioning compared with monolinguals. Despite extensive investigation, there is, however, no consensus regarding the existence of such a bilingual advantage The use of "advantage" here is with respect to some measure of "executive functioning", and I see no reason to suspect that in that paper the authors don't fully define what constitutes "executive function". > bordering on defining the purpose of life to become objective Where do the authors suggest anything remotely like this? To step away from the topic at hand for moment: when one speaks of the efficacy of various running techniques, do you immediately dismiss them as if they were presuming that the purpose of life is to come first place in foot races? Your goals in life may not include coming first place in foot races, but that doesn't make the criteria for "winning" the race itself any less objective. Similarly, you may find some or all of the models of "executive function" to be useless for your needs in that ranking high in these models doesn't mean living a prosperous and/or meaningful life for you. And that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean that speaking of an advantage with respect to these models is inherently subjective.

zzzcpan 7y ago

That's the thing, you can't make a falsifiable hypothesis here, because "bilingual advantage" is subjective, bordering on defining the purpose of life to become objective.

funklute 7y ago
hummm.... I partly agree with you now. I don't agree that "bilingual advantage" is necessarily subjective per se. But if you were to say "the conclusions are only valid insofar as the chosen metrics to measure are representative of an underlying bilingual advantage" - then I would totally agree. I guess my view is that this latter question is very subtle, and something for a domain expert to gauge. I'm not in a position to gauge it, and this is the point where I do to some degree have to trust the peer-review process, as flawed as it may be!
cstrahan 7y ago
> because "bilingual advantage" is subjective Yes, without any further qualifications, "bilingual advantage" is subjective... but then you're making a straw man argument. Here's that quote again: > Because of enduring experience of managing two languages, bilinguals have been argued to develop superior executive functioning compared with monolinguals. Despite extensive investigation, there is, however, no consensus regarding the existence of such a bilingual advantage The use of "advantage" here is with respect to some measure of "executive functioning", and I see no reason to suspect that in that paper the authors don't fully define what constitutes "executive function". > bordering on defining the purpose of life to become objective Where do the authors suggest anything remotely like this? To step away from the topic at hand for moment: when one speaks of the efficacy of various running techniques, do you immediately dismiss them as if they were presuming that the purpose of life is to come first place in foot races? Your goals in life may not include coming first place in foot races, but that doesn't make the criteria for "winning" the race itself any less objective. Similarly, you may find some or all of the models of "executive function" to be useless for your needs in that ranking high in these models doesn't mean living a prosperous and/or meaningful life for you. And that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean that speaking of an advantage with respect to these models is inherently subjective.