3 ms·

> It looks like science and this might even be a standard approach in this field One of them. I don't see anything wrong with it. Science works that way: you s

by ordu 7y ago

> It looks like science and this might even be a standard approach in this field One of them. I don't see anything wrong with it. Science works that way: you start with informal observation, if you see something curious enough, you move to formalizing observation. You search for operational definition of "dancing". After that you could watch a little more and to test your definition and to find other variables you need to control in an experiment. And only then you probably can stage an experiment, controlling everything that needs to be controlled, using "blind" observers having instructions on what to observe and how to measure, but not knowing goals of observation. It is very important to know how to watch Nature, how to see something new and do not miss it. Your proposed idea "to avoid known words and to describe in terms of observed behavior" wouldn't work for this task. You would drown in describing words and you drown your readers. And probably no one would see few important observations in a heap of unimportant. The funny thing -- scientists do not what dance is. Even in people we do not know what dance is. How we could call something "the dance" if we do not know what dance is? Should we believe a person when she says she was dancing? Or maybe we should believe our perception which has its ways to distinguish dance from not dance? I think, that it is the case when an informal perception based approach is the best. Just because we have no satisfying formal definition of a dance.

stewbrew 7y ago
Okay, let's discuss just two details: - They discuss an effect size related to gender based on the observation of n=7 chimpanzees. Unfortunately, the software didn't stop them from calculate t-tests etc. but this is simply ridiculous. At this point, we simply ignore the fact that the chimpanzees "participate in experiments on a voluntary basis". Self-selection bias is unheard of. - Other statements are based on the observation of n=1 chimpanzee. Again, unfortunately the software didn't stop them from calculating an anova. At best, this is a case study. Don't get me wrong, case studies can be very useful and informative. I'm a big fan of good case studies. But you shouldn't disguise it as something else. If you don't have data suitable for statistical analysis, forget about it. Do something else. Don't pretend you're a physicist. BTW I don't question that animals respond to music. Why not. But just repeating piano samples doesn't make sound music -- not even techno. Don't ask animals to dance to sound no human would dance to.

by ordu 7y ago

stewbrew 7y ago

Okay, let's discuss just two details: - They discuss an effect size related to gender based on the observation of n=7 chimpanzees. Unfortunately, the software didn't stop them from calculate t-tests etc. but this is simply ridiculous. At this point, we simply ignore the fact that the chimpanzees "participate in experiments on a voluntary basis". Self-selection bias is unheard of. - Other statements are based on the observation of n=1 chimpanzee. Again, unfortunately the software didn't stop them from calculating an anova. At best, this is a case study. Don't get me wrong, case studies can be very useful and informative. I'm a big fan of good case studies. But you shouldn't disguise it as something else. If you don't have data suitable for statistical analysis, forget about it. Do something else. Don't pretend you're a physicist. BTW I don't question that animals respond to music. Why not. But just repeating piano samples doesn't make sound music -- not even techno. Don't ask animals to dance to sound no human would dance to.