6 ms·

> Although these experiments were conducted with only Dutch speakers, the team believes that it's likely they would have found the same results with other langu

> Although these experiments were conducted with only Dutch speakers, the team believes that it's likely they would have found the same results with other languages. Red flag. That's not science.

vanderZwan 6y ago
What is science according to you?
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  Testing hypotheses experimentally before declaring the likelihood of a result.
  - d0mine 6y ago
    Yes, culture and language are interconnected and therefore interpretations/importance of hand gestures may depend on specific language
  - bildung 6y ago
    That's a rather stinted defition of the scientific process. Even formalist, natural-science-focussed theories like Poppers critical rationalism allow for this approach (which isn't even part of the paper, BTW), as long as the thesis is falsifiable.
  - statstutor 6y ago
    Hard disagree. Having "probable cause" to test a hypothesis is an important part of science. Testing neutral hypotheses is only a recipe for pointless p-hacking, I'd say that's not science.
    - wombatmobile 6y ago
      In this case, it isn't a neutral hypothesis. Languages exist as part of culture. To extrapolate and assume that these Dutch results will translate into other languages, because languages are translatable and therefore equivalent, is to ignore culture. For the same reason that what you know as "hand waving" is not neutral, the proposition deserves to be investigated rigorously in a way that isolates cultural signals from language, to the extent possible. That's a significant experimental challenge that warrants a scientific objectivity which is compromised by presuming the result. But I may be reading too much into this, because I'm giving a reason why the results might translate. The original researchers don't even give that. They just say they think it will, without giving a reason. That's not science - it is speculation. I'm fine with speculation and opinions. They have their uses and contexts. All I'm saying is that speculation and opinions are not science. The value of science arises precisely from where expectations are upended by experimental data.
  - vanderZwan 6y ago
    And what about that definition suggests that scientists are not allowed to say what they expect to see in future research without claiming that they've proven it, which is what the quote you referenced boils down to. As far as I can tell they aren't claiming that their research generalizes, only that they expect it will.
  - TheRealSteel 6y ago
    They didn't declare the likelihood of the result, they declared what they believe to be the likelihood of the result.
throwanem 6y ago
Recommending directions for future work by other researchers - this by you isn't science?

> Although these experiments were conducted with only Dutch speakers, the team believes that it's likely they would have found the same results with other languages. Red flag. That's not science.

vanderZwan 6y ago

What is science according to you?

wombatmobile 6y ago
Testing hypotheses experimentally before declaring the likelihood of a result.
- d0mine 6y ago
  Yes, culture and language are interconnected and therefore interpretations/importance of hand gestures may depend on specific language
- bildung 6y ago
  That's a rather stinted defition of the scientific process. Even formalist, natural-science-focussed theories like Poppers critical rationalism allow for this approach (which isn't even part of the paper, BTW), as long as the thesis is falsifiable.
- statstutor 6y ago
  Hard disagree. Having "probable cause" to test a hypothesis is an important part of science. Testing neutral hypotheses is only a recipe for pointless p-hacking, I'd say that's not science.
  - wombatmobile 6y ago
    In this case, it isn't a neutral hypothesis. Languages exist as part of culture. To extrapolate and assume that these Dutch results will translate into other languages, because languages are translatable and therefore equivalent, is to ignore culture. For the same reason that what you know as "hand waving" is not neutral, the proposition deserves to be investigated rigorously in a way that isolates cultural signals from language, to the extent possible. That's a significant experimental challenge that warrants a scientific objectivity which is compromised by presuming the result. But I may be reading too much into this, because I'm giving a reason why the results might translate. The original researchers don't even give that. They just say they think it will, without giving a reason. That's not science - it is speculation. I'm fine with speculation and opinions. They have their uses and contexts. All I'm saying is that speculation and opinions are not science. The value of science arises precisely from where expectations are upended by experimental data.
- vanderZwan 6y ago
  And what about that definition suggests that scientists are not allowed to say what they expect to see in future research without claiming that they've proven it, which is what the quote you referenced boils down to. As far as I can tell they aren't claiming that their research generalizes, only that they expect it will.
- TheRealSteel 6y ago
  They didn't declare the likelihood of the result, they declared what they believe to be the likelihood of the result.

throwanem 6y ago

Recommending directions for future work by other researchers - this by you isn't science?