|
Post by brandt on Feb 2, 2012 15:27:52 GMT 10
I posted a link to a good primer not too long ago. I suspect that it was not read.
I must apologize for such short attention right now. I am buried until the weekend. More of that useless hard work (please hear the friendly in that).
If there is no standard of validity then anything can be invalid for any reason. I do note that you said "idiosyncratic." I hope that you can forgive my ignorance. Could you provide me with your non-idiosyncratic standard so that I don't waste your time?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 2, 2012 16:37:26 GMT 10
I posted a link to a good primer not too long ago. I suspect that it was not read. Designed!? Solve!? The word design is found a lot in the article. There is no designer and no design, just the roll of the genetic dice and the survival of the survivers. As Richard Dawkins said. "The assignment of purpose to everything is called teleology. Children are native teleologists, and many never grow out of it.” He also said. Our discussion then led onto the acquisition of language. I must apologize for such short attention right now. I am buried until the weekend. More of that useless hard work (please hear the friendly in that). Good luck. If there is no standard of validity then anything can be invalid for any reason. I do note that you said "idiosyncratic." I hope that you can forgive my ignorance. Could you provide me with your non-idiosyncratic standard so that I don't waste your time? This is very much like asking what are the standards of a valid argument. There are many permutations but in my understanding the "standard standards" for an experiment are basically: Validity: Does the evidence address the original question or does it measure what it purports to measure? Corollaries being: Was the experiment conducted under controlled conditions with a representative sample, and were steps taken to screen out experimenter bias and leading circumstances? Reliability: Was the experiment repeatable or was it a one-off? Would similar results be obtained with a similar sample? Relevancy: Was the question being tested relevant to the overall debate? That is the job of a scientist isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Feb 2, 2012 19:09:39 GMT 10
This is very much like asking what are the standards of a valid argument. This is very much like really getting back to basics. Looks like we have a long way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 3, 2012 9:06:41 GMT 10
Here is a primer (linked): The principles of validity and reliability are fundamental cornerstones of the scientific method. Together, they are at the core of what is accepted as scientific proof, by scientist and philosopher alike. By following a few basic principles, any experimental design will stand up to rigorous questioning and skepticism.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 3, 2012 19:26:38 GMT 10
Please consider the determination that the world was flat. Of course this was based on ignorance and an official mandate from ignorant people. There isn't some group someplace that makes the determination it is just one of the ways things are. You have a genetic potential that you cannot exceed. That isn't a policy statement. Yet Evolutionary Psychologists presume to determine the "way things are": Mate selection; Jealousy; Hierarchies and Coalitions; Etc.; which are, when presented as innate universals, based on ignorance.Designed!? Solve!? The word design is found a lot in the article. There is no designer and no design, just the roll of the genetic dice and the survival of the survivers. As Richard Dawkins said. "The assignment of purpose to everything is called teleology. Children are native teleologists, and many never grow out of it.”
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 4, 2012 7:17:14 GMT 10
So that I understand your stance correctly, you believe that humans have grown beyond instinct? Basically, yes. I am open to valid, relevant evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?To clarify my stance, I would prefer to say that, with the exception of primitive reflexes, we have "evolved beyond instinct" (I am uncomfortable with "grown" in this context as it implies progress). We may like to think of our evolutionary trend being one of progress but in doing so we are going beyond science. Evolution is not always the survival of the fittest but, as Smithee said there is only the "survival of the survivors." Witness the demise of the Neanderthals (more robust physiques, less neotenized skulls and larger adult brain capacity than our modern humans). The best supported theory to account for their extinction is that their behaviour was too inflexible to cope with factors such as climate change. In saying there are no human instincts, I agree with the mainstream scientific community and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I see no need to pursue fringe theories, especially those which appear to be little more than earlier, discredited theories under another label.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 4, 2012 8:06:13 GMT 10
Some prerequisites were required before flexible and interactive, memetic social learning could replace fixed, genetic instincts. Before we could evolve beyond instincts, we required larger brains to cope with the complexities to be accounted for by social learning; that required larger skulls; and that required a larger birth canel. BTW, the degree of neoteny was apparently less among Neanderthals (mentioned previously) than among modern humans:
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 4, 2012 8:08:48 GMT 10
Bro. Brandt,
Let’s spell out our positions (correct me if I’m wrong): We both agree that flexible and interactive memetic social learning is significant among humans and we both agree that fixed, genetic instinctual behaviour among humans is less obvious than among other animals, including other apes. Evolution has brought us this far: The question remains as to just how far that is.
You insist there remain some universal traces of instincts (or, as you prevaricate, “innate behaviours” or “dispositions”). I say that comparative anthropological studies support the “null hypothesis,” except for primitive reflexes.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 4, 2012 9:24:52 GMT 10
To start over, do we agree on the following definition?
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Feb 4, 2012 14:34:42 GMT 10
"The principles of validity and reliability are fundamental cornerstones of the scientific method."
In Australia we say first year Psychology is all "Rats and Stats". Even if you learn nothing else if you can show you understand validity and reliability you will pass and if you fail on them you will not pass no matter what else you know.
|
|