Southerly: The Science Behind The Three Most Important Words In The English Language
40 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
affects research. There goes my English degree...
-
Is it a national desperation or a sycophantic self-supporting circle that any criticism must be fought to the death?
It was a lightweight interview with no detail by which to judge the veracity of the study.
David I take it you don't have any details by which to illuminate the psyc study and my old flatties survey was possibly a bit close to the truth. Please prove me wrong.
Emma be proud as I am, spelling errors are a sign of national pride. Zee/Zealand and have you seen 1/2 moon & horseshoe bays on Stewart Island? They were transposed.
-
Michael Fitzgerald:
I'm quite happy for you to criticize, don't hold back -- although I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, or why your ex-flatmate is being cited in this discussion.
I reported on the results of research by a top academic. His work has been peer-reviewed. I would suggest that this, by itself, is a good guarantee of veracity. The article gave details of (some of) the main findings of his research.
Tell me what else you'd like to hear (that can be fitted into a nominal five minute radio programme) and I'll do my best to provide it for the next subject that I cover.
By the way, I seem to recognize your prose style. Do you also write under the name Dad4Justice?
-
Is it a national desperation or a sycophantic self-supporting circle that any criticism must be fought to the death?
Way to go Michael.
But if you have any suggestions as to how I can pack more information into around five minutes then please let me know.
David, will you stop fighting to the death like that, please?
I am curious, Michael, is it no longer feasible for scientists to explain or bring science to the masses? See, I am hoping for an explanation from David of dark energy that I can understand.
My 8 year old thinks it sounds like what keeps magnets apart when like poles are pointed at each other. Maybe I'll just stick to that explanation as it would be a shame to offend purists' sensibilities.
-
As I said above - a link to the study would be great. From that we can see the bias (everyone is biased).
Psycs do good work but they've dropped some clangers as well. Recovered Memory syndrom just one way they've ruined lives (not mine or anyone I know - another mate who's a psyc told me about a few though).
I've only recently started on this sure, but I'm not that guy or in anyway known or connected to him - he scares me too.
-
Don that's the point - I don't think science has been brought to the public. Just proclaimations from on high. More detail would bring a greater understanding of science & hopefully a raising of national consciousness of what constitutes good science (am I sounding geeky yet).
I did think the quip about getting someone fired was a bit harsh. I'm all for education - hell re-education for some. -
Still, it's nice to know my reaction to Angelina Jolie and Toni Marsh is 'relatively indiscriminate'.
Scientists have such a way with words.
I take your point about the invisibilty of bi-sexuality in all of this. I suppose one problem is that these sorts of studies reflect averages. On average men and women do things differently. You are saying "what about those that don't act averagely?".
Your questions have certainly made me think a bit harder about sex and sexuality.
-
Michael Fitzgerald wrote:
... a link to the study would be great.
A link to Prof Fletcher's website was included in the original PA radio entry and transcript (under the 'Read more about Professor Garth Fletcher' heading). You can find details of all his publications there...
Michael Fitzgerald wrote:
I did think the quip about getting someone fired was a bit harsh.
That was a self-joke on my part. You apparently hadn't/haven't realized that I am the person who does these programmes for Radio Live. But rest assured that I am not really going to have myself fired (I hope).
I do listen seriously to all criticism and feedback, and try to improve the programme accordingly (where possible, given time/budget constraints).
-
Don that's the point
Oh I see. For a moment there I thought your point was that we were all a bunch of sycophants unable to participate in scientific discourse. At least we have cleared that up :-)
-
Steven - horrendous stuff, hard to read. I'm reffering to the memmories attributed to infants, those who cannot talk. Talking is strongly linked to the time when memory forms. I can't remember anything earlier than when I started to speak and am therefore dubious anyone else can. The situation in your link is different.
David - I'm cheap, I'm not going to buy a book and if that's not Grecian 2000 I don't know what is. Thought as much after I wrote it then saw you linked on your other page. Illiteration is a weakness (among many) of mine.
Well done on the democracy front. Any thoughts for the flag burners in Wellington?
-
Steven (I can't leave that one alone).
Having grown up in a couple of family homes and seen the impact of various forms of child abuse. I as we all do have the utmost sympathies for the victims.
I do believe there are a very few who have been lead to believe they are victims as memories have been implanted by suggestion at a time from which they have no memory and are incapable of having one.
Similarly the gender reassignment after the botched circumcision is another failing of psyc.
No personal axe to grind. -
Michael, at this point in proceedings, it seems worthwhile to take a detour into the philosophy of science.
The truth of a proposition depends on the weight of evidence for or against it. This balance of evidence changes every time a new study on a topic is conducted. Therefore, what is 'true' now, may not have been 'true' 10 years ago, and what is 'false' now, may have been 'true' 10 years ago. A cute extension of this, is the idea of a Half-life of Knowledge; that is, the time time in which it takes half of what is currently considered to be 'true' to become 'false'. In psychology, it is estimated that this time is a little as 5 years.
As a result of this, it is a common mistake to make judgements based on current knowledge rather than knowledge at the time. It's especially frequent where there are personal outcomes based on it. And there can be issues around whether the withdrawal with the change in the truth value of knowledge was sufficiently timely. This would be true of things like Vioxx, repressed memory, and gender reassignment, among many, many other medical treatments. A good historical example would be Marie Curie's death, because while she discovered a lot of stuff about radiation, she didn't work out that it would kill her. Repressed memory has been good and dead for a long time now.
As an aside, you are (under current knowledge!) correct that autobiographical memory requires language, so that there is typically 'childhood amnesia' until around 2.5 years old (but this ends earlier for first borns, girls, Maori, those who have upheaval in the period; and much later for Asian children). The only memories prior to this time are 'sense' memories, usually the feel of an object, or something similar.
-
The truth of a proposition depends on the weight of evidence for or against it.
Ouch. The 'philosophy' of 'science' must have changed almightily in the last 20 years. Or the 'snigger quotes' indicate we're talking about 'truth' not truth. Or I've repressed my memories of crucial elements in Popper, Newton-Smith, et al. :-)
-
I'm thinking of a relatively simple (but not 'naive') form of empiricism, rather than the darker depths of the philosophy of science, along with the scientific fact, which rather than being immutable, is very much open to change. Somewhat like the lovely argument that evolution is only a theory...
-
I happened across this today, which might be, well, relevant to the tangent, anyway...
<qoute> Researchers at the University of Warwick say sexual orientation, as well as gender, affects navigation skills, reports the Daily Telegraph.
They claim straight men perform better at map reading than gay men who in turn perform better than lesbians, who in turn do better than straight women.
Data was taken from over 198,000 people aged 20-65 years (109,612 men and 88,509 women).</quote>
I did talk to my partner about the differences between men and women. He says women are like Win95: they pretend to be able to multitask, but in fact are just switching and degrading their overall performance.
And men are like DOS. If you don't type in EXACTLY what you want done at the prompt, they'll just sit in the corner doing nothing.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.