BBC: Autism 'hits body language skill'

Post Reply New Topic

I am able to employ basic reading and comprehension skills to comprehend things in context as a whole. Thus, I am not prone to erroneously assume that any research where subjective words are used to discuss interpretation of results, necessarily was carried out in such a way as to produce non objective results.


The words of the author of the article in creating the heading for the article, do not prove or evidence a lack of objectivity to the results, it is that simple. Again I draw your attention to the fact that measurements do not fail to be sufficiently objective just because you do not like that they demonstrate one group performed a task better than another group. It is not objective to dismiss results because you do not like them.

There is no evidence that I or the researchers are not aware of these issues, nor that no control was enacted in regards to this variable.


There is no indication whatsoever that the results mean any such thing.

The inability to reliably distinguish left from right is in fact a disability.


Can you produce any evidence whatsoever regarding the extent or limits of the researcher’s knowledge in these areas?


Nothing you have posited indicates to me that you are a good source for advice on the application or interpretation of scientific endeavours.

Last edited by pandd on 13 Aug 2009, 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Demagogue means listing the examples mentioned above because a big part of the art of science is to make the relevant links while u intentionally have chosen the most irrelevant ones
i already know that in your book that count as honesty because i already guessed what kind of book u r reading
anyway i gave one small example of the way evolution might influence our perception of movements (the predator vs. philosopher) which u ignored because it was relevant
like many AS i may sound too "dirty" and too directly to the average hypocrite but i learned to disrespect the clean and "respectful" talkers like you as it is no coincidence that most of the time they hiding an uncaring dishonesty under their polished exterior so i couldn't care less whether u take me for a reliable source

BTW
even the seemingly ridiculous examples u listed are very much linked to "objective" fields such as math and physic
let alone the more "soft" ones like field of human behavior that include the research we were discussing
and to take such links into account it is not grossly unproductive alone of the most beneficiary effect of the information age is that it is now possible to weigh countless sources of information instantly(which also serves as another example on how seemingly unrelated fields influence each other)
u may noticed that as science advances it become more inter-disciplinary and this is no mere coincidence because at a certain depth it is not possible to do anything meaningful with out taking into account many seemingly unrelated datas
it's a good thing that at least some of knows how to use computers and have a mind that can link the unlinkable

No, it does not. You can determine this yourself by resorting to a dictionary, it’s not difficult. Just find the relevant entry within a dictionary, (they are alphabetised for your convenience) and read the relevant entry. Then you too will know the wonders of knowing what the word “demagogue” means.

Keep in mind that your petty and childish insults have even less impact on their targets when you clearly do not understand what you are saying when you make them.

Nothing about the meaning of the word “demagogue” is determined by the art of science. It’s meaning rather is determined by convention, just as is the meaning of other words.
I see no evidence that I have failed to make relevant links, although I have seen and pointed out evidence of you failing to make relevant links and inferences.

You should not expect me to be concerned about the contents of your guesses since you have demonstrated previously in this thread that you have no insight into my thinking or the contents of my mind, and that both your guesses and your attempts at reasoning are of very questionable quality.

That example is not relevant for the outcomes of this research in any way that I can see or that you have described. The research is not investigating the effect or impacts of the measured performance difference on either hunting or engaging in philosophical pursuits, and unless you can describe how such considerations would have resulted in different measurements, or materially altered the interpretation of the results, I am forced to conclude that any failing to take such considerations into account has not negatively impacted on the reliability or objectivity of the investigation’s results.
Bottom line, how would any such consideration have caused the measured results to differ?
You do not sound dirty. Rather you create an impression of being childish, and either unable or unwilling to be reasonable, and therefore unlikely to have or to be expressing reasoned opinions. You come across as someone who is very poor at focusing on the issue before-you, and who cannot control their subjective ideological preferences, such that their ability to reason in respect of certain information is compromised.

Taking each and everything both in that list and not in that list into account any and everytime one wishes to investigate anything at all in a scientific or objective manner, is neither necessary nor practical. It’s that simple.

Yes, I expect I have noticed as much. I have also noticed that none of this requires what you claim these researchers failed to do in order to conduct research or investigation that produces reliable and useful results, so I am less than convinced of the relevancy of this comment in terms of criticising these researchers or their research.


By definition the "unlinkable" is that which cannot be linked.

never said that the "art of science" has anything to do with demagogue
what i wrote is that in the context of this debate your choice of the most ludicrous examples in order to present negative view of my assertion concerning the importance of the inter-disciplinary approach is demagogue

BTW
linking the unlink-able is one of the definitions of genius or inspiration but i guess your tendency toward the simplest and flattest way of looking at thing is of no surprise to me at this stage

That is not what you said. What you said is still accessible, you can go back and review your original comments if you wish.
Even if that had been what you said., you’d still be wrong.
You really ought to check a dictionary for the meaning of the word “demagogue”. It may interest you for instance, to learn that it’s actually a noun.


No, actually, “linking the unlinkable” is a nonsense and self contradictory platitude, although I appreciate that those who are less than apt at reasoning for themselves are prone to ape such nonsense under the mistaken belief that they are expressing something deep, rather than parroting something meaningless.

I read the paper, and on page 2 in the Method section 1.2.3, the researchers state:

"Prior questioning confirmed that all participants were able to discriminate reliably left from right."