3 ms·

How does this follow the scientific method? I can't see the difference between phrenology associating different Skull shapes with behavior and this study. As

How does this follow the scientific method? I can't see the difference between phrenology associating different Skull shapes with behavior and this study. As far as I can tell it's the same pseudoscience except it doesn't offend the morality of people in charge. If I'm missing something please let me know.

patmcc 3y ago
The issue with i.e. phrenology is that there's no association between skull shapes and behavior, as far as anyone can tell. There do seem to be a bunch of correlations relating to gender and behavior (although why exactly those correlations exist is certainly actively debated). How do you figure it's unscientific?
- worksonmine 3y ago
  Unscientific is the new politically incorrect.
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  "Cranial capacity was found to correlate significantly with performance IQ (0.14) and total IQ (0.13)."[0] Does this prove Phrenology is a science? I think it's unscientific because polls are not an accurate test parameter to evaluate behavior, it can't be reproduced without a lot of bias and variables. The questions, subjects and practice of analysing yourself is full of parameters the researchers fail to account for. It's very rudimentary and below the quality of a MythBusters episode, I don't get how this can be replicated let alone trusted as is. [0]https://karger.com/bbe/article-abstract/16/4/253/44950/Brain-Size-and-Intelligence-in-Man?redirectedFrom=PDF https://karger.com/bbe/article-abstract/16/4/253/44950/Brain...
kelseyfrog 3y ago
The heirarchy of evidence is within the realm of science, no?
xcv123 3y ago
There are fundamental genetic differences between men and women, which determine differences in our brain structure, therefore behaviour. The study is not pseudoscience. Social constructivism is an anti-scientific perspective. Even if the behavioural differences between men and women were purely socially determined, the study would still be scientific, in that it investigates and measures one of those differences. If you believe there are zero behavioural differences between men and women on average (whether genetic or socially determined) then you are completely lost.
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  I don't think polls are precise enough to be used as a measuring tool in science. If you replicate the measurements and get different results, how can that be? Aren't you failing to account for all other variable parameters when investigating the phenomenon?
  - xcv123 3y ago
    Participants were selected from a university. This is statistics. Polls have a margin of error.
    - hotdogscout 3y ago
      Which is a flawed use of math because margin of error expectations are based on an empirical rule based on a random variable and answers to a poll are not random. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_r...
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - xcv123 3y ago
        The study may not be perfect according to your impeccable standards, but it is not entirely scientifically worthless either.

patmcc 3y ago

The issue with i.e. phrenology is that there's no association between skull shapes and behavior, as far as anyone can tell. There do seem to be a bunch of correlations relating to gender and behavior (although why exactly those correlations exist is certainly actively debated). How do you figure it's unscientific?

worksonmine 3y ago
Unscientific is the new politically incorrect.
hotdogscout 3y ago
"Cranial capacity was found to correlate significantly with performance IQ (0.14) and total IQ (0.13)."[0] Does this prove Phrenology is a science? I think it's unscientific because polls are not an accurate test parameter to evaluate behavior, it can't be reproduced without a lot of bias and variables. The questions, subjects and practice of analysing yourself is full of parameters the researchers fail to account for. It's very rudimentary and below the quality of a MythBusters episode, I don't get how this can be replicated let alone trusted as is. [0]https://karger.com/bbe/article-abstract/16/4/253/44950/Brain-Size-and-Intelligence-in-Man?redirectedFrom=PDF https://karger.com/bbe/article-abstract/16/4/253/44950/Brain...

kelseyfrog 3y ago

The heirarchy of evidence is within the realm of science, no?

xcv123 3y ago

There are fundamental genetic differences between men and women, which determine differences in our brain structure, therefore behaviour. The study is not pseudoscience. Social constructivism is an anti-scientific perspective. Even if the behavioural differences between men and women were purely socially determined, the study would still be scientific, in that it investigates and measures one of those differences. If you believe there are zero behavioural differences between men and women on average (whether genetic or socially determined) then you are completely lost.

hotdogscout 3y ago
I don't think polls are precise enough to be used as a measuring tool in science. If you replicate the measurements and get different results, how can that be? Aren't you failing to account for all other variable parameters when investigating the phenomenon?
- xcv123 3y ago
  Participants were selected from a university. This is statistics. Polls have a margin of error.
  - hotdogscout 3y ago
    Which is a flawed use of math because margin of error expectations are based on an empirical rule based on a random variable and answers to a poll are not random. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_r...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - xcv123 3y ago
      The study may not be perfect according to your impeccable standards, but it is not entirely scientifically worthless either.