Correction: Meehan's report in Nature about the committee was that the committee was not "ungullible." That is, he felt the original committee WAS gullible. Gary
>>> "Gerald Peterson" <peter...@svsu.edu> 3/5/2009 9:12 AM >>> Wow, I hadn't heard about this effort to emphasize the group investigating Clever Hans was scientific and that they were totally befuddled. Good examples of revisionist history surround such episodes tho. I will have to check my old class notes where this was always presented. Herman Spitz, in his wonderful little book "Nonconscious movements: From mystical messages to Facilitated Communication" explores the fact the Stumpf was apparently upset about a news Note in the journal _Nature_ that stated the committee had concluded the demonstrations indicated significant mental powers of the animal. This news note indicates, or implies, the committee had status as a commission and was "scientific" with its membership including the director of the Zoo, a Veterinary surgeon, and professor of the Physiology Institute at Berlin University. Despite Stumpf's more cautious conclusions (apparently), Spitz points out that Stumpf had initially been impressed by the animal's performance (Pp. 26-27). Others were also doubtful about the committee's conclusions---as presented in the press--and Spitz notes that a report appeared in _Nature_ by a J. Meehan that concluded essentially that the commitee was "not gullible." (Spitz, P. 28). Having checked my old notes from graduate classes and seminars, etc, I find that this "commission" was typically presented in class more cautiously as the commission being, indeed, impressed, having found no intentional fraud, and suggesting further investigation. Then Stumpf is often reported to have handed off the problem to "his" student Pfungst who gloriously employs more systematic and controlled procedures. This is not actually historically correct either of course, but psychologists love their "origin myths" as one of my favorite profs used to say. Gary Spitz, H. H. (1997). Nonconscious movements: From mystical messages to facilitated communication. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. Professor, Psychology Saginaw Valley State University University Center, MI 48710 989-964-4491 peter...@svsu.edu >>> Allen Esterson <allenester...@compuserve.com> 3/5/2009 4:05 am >>> On 4 March 2009 Michael Smith wrote (no doubt tongue in cheek) on the issue of the definition of science: >Reminds me of Clever Hans. >Apparently the scientists found repeated consistent evidence >by independent observers and reached a tentativley accepted >truth. But fortunately, a psychologist came to the rescue. Several websites recycle the statement that a team of "scientists" upheld the "Clever Hans" claim, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/buf3gn and http://skepdic.com/cleverhans.html I haven't been able to ascertain the membership of the team, but according to the Wikipedia entry the Commission set up to examine the claims "consisted of a veterinarian, a circus manager, a Cavalry officer, a number of school teachers, and the director of the Berlin zoological gardens." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans It is evident that the Commission failed to use a blind test of the claims (a procedure known since the beginning of the nineteenth century), so their examination of the horse's abilities can hardly be described as scientific. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ( http://www.esterson.org/ ) *********************************** Subject: Re: Does the new definition of science measure up? | Science | guardian.co.uk From: Michael Smith <tipsl...@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:14:12 -0700 Reminds me of Clever Hans. Apparently the scientists found repeated consistent evidence by independent observers and reached a tentativley accepted truth. But fortunately, a psychologist came to the rescue. I think the definition of science is problematic and no definition will satisfy everyone (unless it is as long as the APA guide for writing). And probably, there is a difference between what science should be and what it actually is. Which one should be defined? Both? If science as practiced is defined would it (should it?) mention things like science being "steered" by money interests and societal gestalt? Science, as practiced, is after all a social phenomenon. --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
