Ralph wrote:
> My own experience with Dr. Wenger's techniques is that
they do work
> and do appear to increase intelligence.
Ralph offers a fine example of "Testimonial
evidence".
Regarding the quality of the four types of evidence,
please read the text below.
( from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imagestream/message/28606 )
[...]
If we stick with personal testimony (typically the worst
form of
evidence: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imagestream/message/6318
),
then you'll find many people here willing to support ISing
[and its
supposed effect on IQ].
[...]
On the nature of evidence...
When presented with "information" or
"evidence" out there in the world,
we have a choice of and are responsible for our reactions to
it.
It seems that a number of people (I know a few) tend to
uncritically accept
or uncritically reject various claims, positions, ideas,
practices, etc. It
also seems likely to me and others that many/most of us are
encouraged to rely
on someone else's judgment, to be dominated by the
assumption of authority/
superiority of doctors, teachers, famous people,
politicians, bureaucrats,
so-called experts, etc.
A more productive choice, in my opinion, is one of
critical, tentative,
self-directed acceptance. Each of us can gather
information, examine
the evidence, especially regarding types of evidence, and to
make up our
own minds.
What does this have to do with this list? [I'm posting
this to several.]
We consider here a number of practices, and claims are made.
How we
evaluate these is crucial to sorting the wheat from the
chaff.
In a book of interest to me, I found a neat little section
on the nature
of evidence (p 33-37, The 120-Year Diet, Roy Walford, MD),
paraphrased below,
and it seems to me quite general in scope ... applying to
nutrition,
cognitive/linguistic practices, politics, to evaluating most
anything in
general.
Evidence falls into four categories:
1. Testimonial
* people who will say that X works, Y ought to be done, Z
is good, etc.
* celebrities, movie stars, professional athletes, etc.
* highly unreliable, testimony abundantly available for
almost any claim
* "I went to Mexico and they shot me up with XYZ and
I feel great.
My cancer melted away, my arches rose, my bunions
decamped, and
lights went on in my head"
* never includes people who tried X without receiving the
benefit,
or those who didn't try X but received the benefit
anyway
* if one accepts testimonial evidence, one will end up
believing just
about anything
* it isn't necessarily/inherently wrong, but almost
impossible to evaluate
* another example: "clinical anecdote", where a
doctor develops an opinion
or subjective guess based on his/her experience,
without controls
"My clinical experience is patients seem to
benefit from drug Z"
* favorite tool of faddists, charlatans, know-nothings,
etc.
2. Argumentative ("make a case for")
* gathering known facts X or experimental results Y, and
then reasoning
from them that Z ought to be so
* uses logic to derive plausible-seeming inferences
* "exercise increases level of high-density
lipoproteins in blood,
these are usually associated with lower degree of
arteriosclerosis,
so exercise ought to increase resistance to heart
attacks"
* but making a plausible case for something is not
enough. At best a
reasonable hypothesis is developed, but it must be
tested in the
real world for validity
3. Correlational
* events X and Y always or often occur together, implying
that there may
be a causal relationship between them or that both are
caused by event Z
* "nations whose citizens eat a high-fat diet
generally display a
higher incidence of heart disease than low-fat
nations"
* often useful, to generate reasonable-sounding guesses,
but it's not
actual proof
4. Experimental
* repeatable trials, usually with controls
* under appropriate conditions, do X, and Y always
happens. When
another investigator somewhere else does the same, the
same result
is produced
* the only kind of evidence acceptable as
"proof" of a hypothesis
* done well, establishes causal relationship between two
phenomena
* "Repeatedly confirmed experiments in my laboratory
and in many other
laboratories have proved that cutting down calories
plus increasing
the quality of the diet produces very lean, extremely
healthy animals,
greatly extends their maximum lifespans, and keeps them
young both
in appearance and in physical and intellectual
performance."
Argument and noted correlations can be used to construct
hypotheses,
point research into likely productive directions, indicate
how one might
proceed in testing the hypotheses, etc., but they are
insufficient in and
of themselves to establish "truth" or
"proof".
Extensive correlations and well-conceived and implemented
experiments,
together constitute the most solid evidence for various
theoretical
statements, claims, proposals, etc.
Best,
Johnius
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank e-mail from the
address you subscribed under to:
imagestream-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://gro
ups.yahoo.com/group/imagestream/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http:/
/groups.yahoo.com/group/imagestream/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:imagestream-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:imagestream-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
imagestream-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.c
om/info/terms/
|
Hi Johnius,
I'm interested in the scientific method.
I have reported the following benefits of ISing based on my
own
subjective experience.
- increase in the quantity and quality of creative ideas
- increased ability to learn and comprehend information
- increased personal productivity and confidence
- better intuitive awareness, problem solving and decision
making
I'm curious how you would go about designing objective
experiments to
support or refute these claims, with particular emphasis on
the
aspects of quality, creativity, confidence and intuition.
Secondly, are you of the opinion that these attributes, as I
have
described them are indicative of or in any way related to
intelligence or development of intelligence?
More generally, is it possible to design objective
experiments to
test issues of a qualitative nature?
Cheers,
Lach
On 17/02/2007, at 1:31 PM, Johnius wrote:
> If we stick with personal testimony (typically the
worst form of
> evidence: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imagestream/message/6318
),
> then you'll find many people here willing to support
ISing [and its
> supposed effect on IQ].
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank e-mail from the
address you subscribed under to:
imagestream-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://gro
ups.yahoo.com/group/imagestream/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http:/
/groups.yahoo.com/group/imagestream/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:imagestream-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:imagestream-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
imagestream-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.c
om/info/terms/
|
