[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
Looking at economic, educational and career achievement and diversity (or lack thereof) proportional to representation in the population (you didn’t think gay men largely became theatre and design people, or blacks domestics and sharecroppers, only cause we’re good at it, do you?),
[/quote]
There are a lot of reasons why different groups might end up in different jobs which reasons have nothing to do with self-esteem.
For example, there may be outright discrimination going on. For another thing, there might be actual differences in the average abilities or interests of different groups. Another possibility is that a job is rejected or sought because of cultural values that have nothing to do with self esteem
Maybe, but if there’s no way to test the hypothesis, then it’s not scientific.
That’s correct. And if self esteem could be measured roughly but not precisely, then it may be useful as a scientific concept. But if it can’t be measured at all . . . .
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Personally, I suspect that the whole “self esteem” craze was bogus. But I would be interested to see if the concept was put to a bona fide scientific test.
That’s correct. And if self esteem could be measured roughly but not precisely, then it may be useful as a scientific concept. But if it can’t be measured at all . . . .
[/QUOTE]
What you seem to be saying is that anything for which a method of statistical measure has not been devised is probably not real, and anecdotal or other evidence is worthless and would not convince you otherwise.
[QUOTE=threeorange]
What you seem to be saying is that anything for which a method of statistical measure has not been devised is probably not real,
[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by “statistical measure,” but I wil say that you need to be able to measure (or at least categorize) things in order to do science. It’s best if it can be done precisely, but rough measurements can suffice.
If a claim seems to be scientific, but really isn’t, then it’s a warning flag that you are dealing with BS.
Anecdotal evidence is absolutely not worthless. But it does have certain weaknesses. Cf. anecdotal evidence of alien visitation; psychic phenomena; ghosts; etc.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I’m not sure what you mean by “statistical measure,” but I wil say that you need to be able to measure (or at least categorize) things in order to do science. It’s best if it can be done precisely, but rough measurements can suffice.
[/QUOTE]
“Quantifiable measure” would have been a better choice of words.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
If a claim seems to be scientific, but really isn’t, then it’s a warning flag that you are dealing with BS.
[/QUOTE]
If by “not scientific” you mean not testable, I’d say that most of the time this is true, but it can occasionally be a reminder of the limitations of our ability to test certain hypotheses.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Anecdotal evidence is absolutely not worthless. But it does have certain weaknesses. Cf. anecdotal evidence of alien visitation; psychic phenomena; ghosts; etc.
[/QUOTE]
This seems a bit straw-ish. The anecdotal evidence for the subject at hand would mainly involve the recounting of everyday occurences, not extraordinary events.
[QUOTE=threeorange]
“Quantifiable measure” would have been a better choice of words.
[/quote]
Perhaps. Anyway, I think my statement is clear enough.
That seems a bit circular, but anyway, I think you get my point.
It was intended more as an example that clearly shows some of the problems of anecdotal evidence. Even for more commonplace events there are analogous problems. For example, peoples’ observations are often colored by their own wishes and biases.