| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gene Ledbetter
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:23 am Post subject: Scientific Logic |
 |
|
My attention has been called to a recent and frankly absurd article in
the journal Science (Douglas R. Oxley et al., "Political Attitudes
Vary with Physiological Traits," 19 September 2008: vol. 321, no.
5896, pp. 1667-1670).
The authors believe that they have demonstrated that "variations in
political attitudes correlate with physiological traits." The
procedure followed by the researchers was to select two groups of
adults with distinctly different political attitudes, test their
reactions to threatening images and startling sounds, and attempt to
correlate each group with a distinctly different response to the
images and sounds.
The physiological traits measured were changes in skin conductance
when participants viewed "threatening" images, and changes in eye
blink rate when they were startled by an unexpected noise. One group
reacted to these stimuli more strongly than the other, leading the
researchers to their conclusion that there was a correlation between
political attitudes and physiological traits.
The logical difficulty lies in the way the two tested groups were
identified politically. The 46 participants, all of whom held strong
political views, were given a survey that "contained a battery of
items asking respondents whether they agreed with, disagreed with, or
were uncertain toward 28 individual political concepts -- the well-
known Wilson-Patterson format."
It should be noted that the researchers did not attempt to demonstrate
any correlation between the results of this political survey and the
measured physiological traits. Instead, they "identified particular
positions on 18 of these policy issues as those most likely to be held
by individuals particularly concerned with protecting the interests of
the participants' group, defined as the United States in mid-2007,
from threats" and they ignored the other 10 policy issues included in
the survey.
It should be noted further that the researchers still did not attempt
to demonstrate any correlation between the results of this modified
political survey and the measured physiological traits. Instead, they
"computed a summary measure of each participant>s stances on the 18
political issues such that those positions suggesting a concern for
protecting the social unit were given higher scores."
Thus, it was only after the researchers had twice modified a "well-
known" political survey instrument in order to identify participants'
"concern for protecting the social unit" from threats that they
demonstrated a correlation between the results of this doubly modified
survey and the measured physiological traits. The two "political"
groups that showed greater and lesser response to threatening images
and startling sounds were those who had earlier indicated a greater or
lesser concern for protecting their social unit from threats.
In other words, all that the researchers have achieved is to show a
statistically significant correlation between the responses to two
different threatening situations. Individuals who are more or less
fearful are likely to respond to all perceived threats in the same
way.
The researchers have deliberately designed their experiment to give
the results they wanted. A true test could have been conducted using
the unmodified Wilson-Patterson format. The fact that the researchers
went to such great lengths to avoid it suggests that it was tried and
failed to produce the desired results.
Gene Ledbetter |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Gene Ledbetter
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject: Re: Scientific Logic |
|
|
On Oct 7, 4:08 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@sprynet.com> wrote:
[quote]They>ve shown a correlation between two very different sorts
of "responses": verbal responses to questions and physical
reponses to images.
[/quote]
In the case of each participant in the study, the two different sorts
of responses that David refers to originate in the same mind. On the
one hand, the participant>s mind reacts to the emotionalized mental
images in its own memory that are stimulated by a question on the
survey. On the other hand, the participant>s mind reacts to the
emotionalized mental images in its own memory that are stimulated by
the images provided by the researchers. In each instance, the mind is
actually reacting to the emotional content of its own memories, rather
than the actual environmental stimulus.
For example, imagine a child who goes out into a street in front of a
moving car and who is screamed at by his terrified mother. With any
luck at all, the child will be badly frightened, and the next time he
is tempted to go out onto the same street he will remember the
frightening incident and he will be afraid of moving cars, even when
none are present.
Gene Ledbetter |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David C. Ullrich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: Re: Scientific Logic |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:23:36 -0700 (PDT), Gene Ledbetter
<ledbettergene@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]My attention has been called to a recent and frankly absurd article in
the journal Science (Douglas R. Oxley et al., "Political Attitudes
Vary with Physiological Traits," 19 September 2008: vol. 321, no.
5896, pp. 1667-1670).
[...]
In other words, all that the researchers have achieved is to show a
statistically significant correlation between the responses to two
different threatening situations.
[/quote]
They>ve shown a correlation between two very different sorts
of "responses": verbal responses to questions and physical
reponses to images.
[quote]Individuals who are more or less
fearful are likely to respond to all perceived threats in the same
way.
The researchers have deliberately designed their experiment to give
the results they wanted. A true test could have been conducted using
the unmodified Wilson-Patterson format. The fact that the researchers
went to such great lengths to avoid it suggests that it was tried and
failed to produce the desired results.
Gene Ledbetter
[/quote]
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn>t about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David C. Ullrich
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Scientific Logic |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Gene Ledbetter
<ledbettergene@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 4:08 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@sprynet.com> wrote:
They>ve shown a correlation between two very different sorts
of "responses": verbal responses to questions and physical
reponses to images.
[/quote]
It>s impossible to discuss these things if you refuse to include
relevant context. I said the above in reponse to what statement
of yours?
(The context would clarify my reaction "true. so what?" to
what you say below, for example.)
[quote]In the case of each participant in the study, the two different sorts
of responses that David refers to originate in the same mind. On the
one hand, the participant>s mind reacts to the emotionalized mental
images in its own memory that are stimulated by a question on the
survey. On the other hand, the participant>s mind reacts to the
emotionalized mental images in its own memory that are stimulated by
the images provided by the researchers. In each instance, the mind is
actually reacting to the emotional content of its own memories, rather
than the actual environmental stimulus.
For example, imagine a child who goes out into a street in front of a
moving car and who is screamed at by his terrified mother. With any
luck at all, the child will be badly frightened, and the next time he
is tempted to go out onto the same street he will remember the
frightening incident and he will be afraid of moving cars, even when
none are present.
Gene Ledbetter
[/quote]
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn>t about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
