Talk:William Herbert Sheldon

message: The Great Ivy Leage Nude Posture Photo Scandal Shinobu 02:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Times article 

message: It is a direct quote from the New York Times, so it cannot be a weasel word. I have restored the quote in the citation. Readers need to see how strongly or weakly worded the New York Times says his work has been refuted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a great deal of respect for the New York Times. That said, I don't think it has elevated the art of reporting to such a level that anything that appears in its pages is beyond question. Wikipedia is not bound to quote verbatim everything the NYT says. We give folks the cite and they can go look at the article if they want to read more. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: I read it in the Times

message: The scientific community cannot refute a concept just by saying that its author is a coin thief and his theory is quackery. A scientific concept can only be disproved by experimental evidence. All known experimental studies undertaken to test Sheldon's findings have produced supportive evidence for his position:Sheldon maintained that the person's somatotype is genetically determined and causes people to develop and express personality traits consistent with their body builds. For example, he hypothesized that endomorphs (high in fatty tissue) would be sociable, complacent, and capable of easy communication of feelings. He thought mesomorphs (high in muscle tissue) would be adventurous, bold, competitive, aggressive, and energetic, whereas ectomorphs (low in fatty and muscle tissue) would be inhibited, introverted, hypersensitive to pain, and secretive. He tested these hypotheses by having observers rate individuals on these trait dimensions and found empirical support for his ideas (Sheldon, Hartl, & McDermott, 1949, pp. 26–27). Although this study has been strongly criticized on methodological grounds (Sheldon himself made both the physical and psychological ratings), more methodologically sound studies—in which investigator bias was minimized by having one investigator rate the somatotypes and having the study participants independently rate their own personality traits—have also produced supportive evidence for Sheldon's position (Child, 1950; Cortes & Gatti, 1965; Yates & Taylor, 1978).
:—Ryckman, Richard M. Theories of Personality Ninth edition, Cengage Learning, 2007, p. 260
:: 89.110.28.44 (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the Talk page for Somatotype and constitutional psychology. BTW, I would be happy to see  or someone else taking a look at the "discussion" so far to try to salvage something out of this mess, using all available references (including, IIRC, one that Editor75439, who is likely the IP-address poster above, at first cited but dropped after someone pointed out that going on slightly further in the text indicated that the author actually disagreed with Sheldon). I'm too tired of all this. Allens (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryckman disagreed with Sheldon by expressing a conjecture (not supported by any experimental evidence!) that the correlation between somatotypes and psychotypes is explainable by instilled cultural stereotypes. But this conjecture is an obvious absurdity because it implies that the sensitivity to sleeping pills, which in cerebrotonics is thrice lower than in viscerotonics, is a result of cultural stereotypes. —89.110.28.44 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Regarding the premise that "[a] scientific concept can only be disproved by experimental evidence": At what point does a "hypothesis" become a "concept" such that this rule applies? (And, while we're at it, what IS a "scientific concept"?) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's basically a back-asswards rendition of the scientific method. In reality, a scientific concept must be proven by experimental evidence in order to be accepted. The burden of proof is on the person proposing a novel hypothesis. One very common hallmark of nonsense and quackery is that its proponents make a claim and then demand that science conclusively disprove it. MastCell Talk 19:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not quite call it the burden of proof - it's more like the burden of showing that you've tried to disprove it and failed. (The "tried to disprove" efforts need to include attempts to show if any alternative reasonable hypothesis is more congruent with the evidence - or, to be precise, less noncongruent with the evidence.) But, yes, the burden is certainly on those trying to claim something. (This is one reason the precautionary principle is not scientific, incidentally - it removes the burden of proof from those making a claim, namely a claim of danger.) Allens (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Disproof - or proof - of scientific concepts

message: A "new" editor (who, having just started editing November 30, seems unusually adept at citing Wikipedia guidelines) seems to be removing any negative information from this article. This person has already had trouble complying with Wikipedia rules. I have restored the negative text. If that editor wants to re-write it so as to soften the impact, that is one thing. But removing it altogether seems to be censorship by someone who has an ax to grind. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An update: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Editor75439 Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanitizing 

message: The following may be of interest: http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v11n22a06.html, do a "find" for "Sheldon" - on his coin-collecting misdeeds, as is http://maineantiquedigest.com/articles_archive/articles/shel0298.htm on a court decision regarding Sheldon that should be locatable (for an even better reference); and http://www.cbmh.ca/index.php/cbmh/article/view/928/923 - a journal article on Sheldon that looks to be well-referenced if perhaps with some left-wing bias. Allens (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three more articles regarding Sheldon