What gave Science it's status/credibility?

[Pythagorean]

I think you need to stop right there and check your premise. Yes, there are parts of psychological research for which it's difficult to be as objective, that is NOT true for other sciences such as biology or meteorology. As for being systematic, you are completely off base. All sciences must be systematic. Psychological research is just as hypothesis driven as any other science, and has the same requirements of falsifiability. I wish physicists would take a little time to learn about the other sciences and get off this high horse that all other sciences are "soft" or not as rigorous, or not systematic. This is a constantly repeated myth here and elsewhere, and it gets tiring that it is perpetuated based on personal bias rather than evidence or education about these other fields.

I agree. Coming from a physics background, and now shifting my interest to psychology and neurology, I've become very impressed with the methods in psychology compared to what my physics education had implied about it.

 

[Chi Meson]

I think you need to stop right there and check your premise. Yes, there are parts of psychological research for which it's difficult to be as objective, that is NOT true for other sciences such as biology or meteorology. As for being systematic, you are completely off base. All sciences must be systematic. Psychological research is just as hypothesis driven as any other science, and has the same requirements of falsifiability. I wish physicists would take a little time to learn about the other sciences and get off this high horse that all other sciences are "soft" or not as rigorous, or not systematic. This is a constantly repeated myth here and elsewhere, and it gets tiring that it is perpetuated based on personal bias rather than evidence or education about these other fields.

[looks around] who? Wha...? For the record, I never implied biology as being "soft." Squishy. maybe. but only during dissections.

I also should make it clear that I don't think sociology psychology is unscientific, nor invalid, only that quantifiable information is much more difficult to obtain, leaving larger room for error and subjective interpretation.

 

[MissSilvy]

What type of credibility would be required for people to entertain the possibility that women send men body language signals most of the time before men ask them on dates?

I wasn't going to comment, but this clinched it.

First, there is no shortage of recluses on internet forums worrying themselves into a froth over romance and the opposite sex. People tend to ignore it because a. this is not a scientific study, it is an informal survey on the internet and b. What would you gain by understanding a few vague, easily confused, and wildly variable 'signals'? Would you suddenly become a million times more confident with women? Would you star amassing your harem? It's like saying, 'oh I would have no trouble writing my New York Times bestseller novel if only I had a super fancy laptop!' Misplaced hopes.

Also, you are not an expert in psychology. If you were even literate in the subject, you'd know that there have been about a thousand studies done ON THIS EXACT TOPIC! I hate to break it to you, but your 'theory' is not new, very interesting, supported by anything but anecdotes and conjectures or well-thought out.

Also, PMing female forum members out of th blue and uninvited was a bit off-putting, don't you think?

 

[27Thousand]

If you were even literate in the subject, you'd know that there have been about a thousand studies done ON THIS EXACT TOPIC! I hate to break it to you, but your 'theory' is not new, very interesting, supported by anything but anecdotes and conjectures or well-thought out.

Remember, I didn't say it was new. I said that it's been studied by many independently and is in quite a few scientific/academic peer-review journals, and so can it just be ignored without having another explanation? How do you explain all the scientific/academic peer-review journal articles at the bottom, which methodologies can be reviewed by other experts (not anecdotes but has been replicated)? If there's a control group and an experimental group, can you explain how that is not using the Scientific Method? If something makes predictions and uses the null hypothesis, then what is that? Keep in mind it's not one body language behavior, that's not how body language works, but rather multiple ones and within the context of the situation.

As far as the Scientific Method, don't you first make observations, then an explanation/rules, then experiments to test? So for the observation part, if multiple independent researchers put cameras up at singles events and then into scientific/academic peer-review journals where other experts can review, how would you explain to us that not being verifiable? Then if they have some women use some of those body language on men in public and others using something not those behaviors to see how the independent variable affects the dependent variable of whether the man approaches the lady how is that not experimentation in peer-review journal (even if it isn't as controlled as Physics experiments)? How do you explain it beating the null hypothesis? Then if in a lab they have women stay in a room one on one with a man, while filming body language behind a one way mirror, and then asking her afterward to rate how attracted she felt to the man, how do you explain if some of the non-verbal behaviors beat the null and appear to be associated with her rating of the man? How is that not making data falsifiable?


If it doesn't follow the Scientific Method, then maybe you can explain these? :

Walsh, D. G., & Hewitt, J. (1985). Giving men the come-on: Effect of eye contact and smiling in a bar environment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 873-874. (an experiment)

Moore, M.M. (1985) "Nonverbal Courtship Patterns in Women: Context and Consequences." Ethology and Sociobiology, 6:237-247.

Moore, M. M., & Butler, D. L. (1989). Predictive aspects of nonverbal courtship behavior in women. Semiotica, 3, 205-215.

Moore, Monica (1995). "Courtship Signaling and Adolescents: 'Girls Just Wanna Have Fun'?". The Journal of Sex Research, 32(4), 319-328.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813356

Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A. & Fink, B. (2000) Non-verbal behaviour as courtship signals: the role of control and choice in selecting partners. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 21, 371-390.
Abstract at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6H-421TM0X-1&_user=464852&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000022310&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=464852&md5=0c5b15d1f03b840a798d69b1f4ce2b23

Grammar, Karl (1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14(4), 209-236.
Abstract at http://www.springerlink.com/content/x813q68424g46550/

Then there's also the Social Issues Research Centre which takes much peer-review research and puts it in layman terms: http://www.sirc.org/publik/flirt.html , which even talks about using body language in testing the waters to see how the other responds.

 

[27Thousand]

Also, PMing female forum members out of th blue and uninvited was a bit off-putting, don't you think?

OMG, I don't understand why those roommates and some PF members cared so much about having all concepts not physically being in a book somewhere in the world, like that conceptualize phrase? I mean, doesn't that sound like something so extremely trivial to get flustered over, on making sure nothing is physically in a book? Especially a phrase like that one? I kept on telling them that I didn't physically read that phrase in a book nor heard it before and even had Google to back myself up. I don't understand why these people are so "obsessed" over whether something's in a book? Even if that conceptualize phrase would have originated from a book, I could be wrong but don't reasonable and prudent people say knowledge is better than ignorance?

 

[27Thousand]

Before you conclude this, find out if it's true. Get some of that empirical data that science loves so much.

Create a poll. Ask if PFers believe that women do or do not not flirt with men non-verbally.

Unless I'm understanding the other PF member incorrectly, which I'm sorry if I am, post 33 seems very against women "sending out non-verbal flirting signals even if not aware of what they're doing".

I mean, often if I notice a women I'll try to sit up straight, but not so likely around women I don't care about. Don't people do things like lean slightly away from people they don't like as much, and more likely to lean towards those they're interested in talking to? Isn't this something that anyone can observe for themselves? I had to read that from a teach yourself body language book because I think I have problems on picking up things, but the teach yourself exercises where you observe others pointed it out to me personally, through real life experience of watching. Then it had try yourself exercises. Can't anyone experiment and see how folding your arms/leaning slightly away from someone affects how they act and the conversation versus the next time you speak to them when you lean slightly toward them?

I mean, don't people position themselves differently, voices slightly different, eye contact, posture, spatial closeness, etc, around people depending on how they feel about the other? Can't anyone observe others at a social gathering and even observe body language related to receptiveness in talking to others?

Don't other women say they send body language http://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...JfkNWGfsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20091015175438AABS8Ml For example one said to me, "omg that is like all true lol yes all that is very true comin from a girl of my standards lol =] but usually we don't act goofy unless were away from them but still in veiw. But when closer around them we get real qiute." Then the men were different than the women, the men were hostile and told me to get out more.

 

[27Thousand]

i say the mathematicization of science is what gave it its credibility. just think of isaac Newton's "i feign no hypothesis" quotation:



in other words, Newton didn't try to explain any more about gravity other than to describe what it does precisely using math, rather than understand how it works, what causes it, etc. galileo had that original idea, & also the function concept, descartes created analytic geometry & the philosophy that underlies Newton's work. before that, there was the copernican system, which was mathematically simplest, and at the time was its only advantage. math is what gives science its credibility.

That's really interesting! In the experimental-control section of the social sciences, they mostly only use null hypothesis testing or bayesian statistics, but I don't see too much falsifying equations used to predict. They of course make general explanations/observable principles to make predictions, but not equations to do so. Then outside of the experimental-control section, they mostly use statistics just to describe, but not much as far as using equations to predict.

So maybe they can have more of that in the social sciences? Although maybe not as precise as physics, maybe instead equations that give a general confidence interval after being given several variables. Having a statistics minor I know that they sometimes use "Multivariate Statistics" in the social sciences. It's kind of like the Y predicting the X in algebra, but instead you have many many independent Y variable predicting a dependent X variable. Maybe if I track down my R computer programming they use, plus my notes, and then look at peer-review studies, maybe I could brainstorm equations that I could make falsifiable? Now I'm excited! Although it will most definitely not be apple pie

 

[27Thousand]

From what I have read, before World War 2 the US as a nation didn't really invest that much in science as most people thought it was useless, and if you look at the list of nobel prize winners for chemistry from 1901 to 1939, all but 3 were European, for physics during the same time period it was all but 6 were European. American attitudes about science only seemed to change after the atomic bomb made it clear what science was capable of doing, and after that the US become the dominant force in the science world.

That's interesting too! If you don't mind, what source did you read for that? I'll need to be able to back myself up.

 

[fourier jr]

That's really interesting! In the experimental-control section of the social sciences, they mostly only use null hypothesis testing or bayesian statistics, but I don't see too much falsifying equations used to predict. They of course make general explanations/observable principles to make predictions, but not equations to do so. Then outside of the experimental-control section, they mostly use statistics just to describe, but not much as far as using equations to predict.

So maybe they can have more of that in the social sciences? Although maybe not as precise as physics, maybe instead equations that give a general confidence interval after being given several variables.

i don't see why not. Newton himself thought of that, although in reference to other parts of physics:

... since we are concerned with natural philosophy rather than manual arts, and are writing about natural rather than manual powers, we concentrate on aspects of gravity, levity, elastic forces resistance of fluids, and forces of this sort, whether attractive or impulsive. And therefore our present work sets forth mathematical principles of natural philosophy. For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces... Then the motions of the planets, the comets, the moon, and the sea are deduced from these forces by propositions that are also mathematical. If only we could derive the other phenomena of nature from mathematical principles by the same kind of reasoning! For many things lead me to have a suspicion that all phenomena may depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by causes not yet known, either are impelled toward one another and cohere in regular figures, or are impelled from one another and recede.

and hilbert believed that every science, once sufficiently developed, automatically becomes a part of math. maybe social sciences just aren't as developed yet

 

[DaveC426913]

Unless I'm understanding the other PF member incorrectly, which I'm sorry if I am, post 33 seems very against women "sending out non-verbal flirting signals even if not aware of what they're doing".

I don't quite understand her point either.

Miss Silvy, can you clarify post 33? Are you saying non-verbal communication does not happen? Or are you saying it's useless?