How reliable is Graphology?

[Mercutio]

Point #2 was to clarify (if anyone doubted my position on this) that psychology is done in scientific ways.

Are you refering to "psychology" as you defined it in point 1? Or "psychology" as your definition in point 2 refers to it. The two are not the same. Thank you for illustrating my point that a failure to adhere to accepted definitions leads to confusion.

I do not agree with you. One of the strongest criteria in exact science is repeatability of experimental results. Another criteria is the ability to rigorously prove these results. You are not all that familiar with some of the criteria for exact science but that doesn't mean they are not correct.
Maybe the term exact science is not how you would term it. Maybe 'hard' science or 'pure' science. Take your pick. This is just semantics.

Just semantics? I disagree. The vast majority of modern psychology does have repeatability of experimental results, across a wide variety of research areas (from neurotransmitter activity, to single-subject repeated measures designs, through tests of thousands of people like Pesta referred to). Even within clinical psychology, some areas (e.g. applied behavior analysis) are rigorous in their requirement for demonstrating causality, not mere correlation. "Exact" or "pure" or "hard" seems to be confirmation bias at work. Others here have suggested simple physics situations (the swinging magnets, the three-body problem) that are every bit as unpredictable as you say psychology is (oh, right, not if you know "all the data"). Science cannot be defined simply by the consistency of results. It is the methodology which matters.

I don't see any faith here. Only pure hard facts as is demanded in exact sciences.

No faith? Please cite a few papers in which a real-world experiment was done in which "all the data about [a] system" are actually known. I think you might be ignoring your error bars again.

Not true again. See my comments above. All of my reference to psychology was to clinical psychology or psychoanalysis. Probably there are more fields in psychology which can go under the 'not a science' category but that is irrelevant now.

If you believe that all your reference was to clinical or psychoanalysis, then you are still mistaken. The definitions you have posted do not apply to the subset you intend. You have previously stated that you were ignorant of experimental psychology; this ignorance is preventing you from seeing that you are misusing terms.

You just misunderstood my point 2. It is explained in the above comments.

There is indeed misunderstanding. My guess is that it is not on my part.

 

[yairhol]

Are you refering to "psychology" as you defined it in point 1? Or "psychology" as your definition in point 2 refers to it. The two are not the same. Thank you for illustrating my point that a failure to adhere to accepted definitions leads to confusion.

The answer to your question here should be obvious as I had explained what I mean when I say psychology in post #109. A person with a decent reading comprehension should be able to understand this immediately after reading post 109. Now don't understand me wrong, I'm sure you have a good reading comprehension it's just that you argue for the sake of argument so you appear as if not understanding this.
My point #2 was to say that psychology as I mean it or to make it first grade clear that clinical psychology is done in scientific ways. The source was to show where:

"Psychology is the scientific study of ..."

came from.

Just semantics? I disagree. The vast majority of modern psychology does have repeatability of experimental results, across a wide variety of research areas (from neurotransmitter activity, to single-subject repeated measures designs, through tests of thousands of people like Pesta referred to). Even within clinical psychology, some areas (e.g. applied behavior analysis) are rigorous in their requirement for demonstrating causality, not mere correlation. "Exact" or "pure" or "hard" seems to be confirmation bias at work. Others here have suggested simple physics situations (the swinging magnets, the three-body problem) that are every bit as unpredictable as you say psychology is (oh, right, not if you know "all the data"). Science cannot be defined simply by the consistency of results. It is the methodology which matters.

It's not methodology which matters. It is also very important of course but not the criteria that is most important. Repeatability of experiments or better yet theoretical experiments is even more important. If I say that I have discovered some amazing new type of radiation (N-Rays maybe?) but no one can repeat this and verify it then no matter how methodological I have been, my data will become useless as it could have been generated with bias (sounds familiar doesn't it?).
Physics as an exact science is a description of the fundamental laws of nature associated with this field.

No faith? Please cite a few papers in which a real-world experiment was done in which "all the data about [a] system" are actually known. I think you might be ignoring your error bars again.

Why do I need to provide a 'real world' experiment? In theoretical experiments all the data are known and their results are repeatable anywhere anytime. Do I really need to provide papers for this? It is written everywhere. Here is one for example where an FDTD numerical technique (Finite Difference Time Domain) can predict in 100% accuracy the wave propagation through a double negative media.
http://ceta-p5.mit.edu/metamaterials/papers/external/2003/ziolkowski_pre_2003.pdf

Its conclusions (if correct (and they are correct)) are absolute like for example that causality is maintained in DNG media only if it is dispersive. This will always be true no matter where you do the test or when. this is a good example of exact science in action. Can psychoanalysis do that?

If you believe that all your reference was to clinical or psychoanalysis, then you are still mistaken. The definitions you have posted do not apply to the subset you intend. You have previously stated that you were ignorant of experimental psychology; this ignorance is preventing you from seeing that you are misusing terms.

Again with the terms. Terms are very very important indeed escpecially after I have clarified them a thousand times.

There is indeed misunderstanding. My guess is that it is not on my part.

o.k. I have nothing new to add so I'll stop here.

 

[steenkh]

Are there not two kinds of graphology?

One which is woo, and tries to determine what the person is like from his or her handwriting.

And one which is the science that criminologists consult in order to determine if some handwritten text was written by the same person who wrote some other text?

 

[steenkh]

Double post

 

[drkitten]

Are there not two kinds of graphology?

One which is woo, and tries to determine what the person is like from his or her handwriting.

And one which is the science that criminologists consult in order to determine if some handwritten text was written by the same person who wrote some other text?

No, there aren't. The second discipline definitely exists, but it's not called "graphology" by the practitioners and clients.

Just as astronomers get annoyed if you ask them about star signs, and chemists get annoyed if you ask them about the Philosopher's Stone, so do "document examiners" get annoyed if you ask them about "graphology."

 

[yairhol]

Are there not two kinds of graphology?

One which is woo, and tries to determine what the person is like from his or her handwriting.

And one which is the science that criminologists consult in order to determine if some handwritten text was written by the same person who wrote some other text?

what drkitten is opposed of is the use of the term "forensic graphology" which layman use to describe "forensic document examination". Graphology is pseudo-science and forensic document examination is pretty accurate as I have been told by some in this thread.
Maybe drkitten would like to enlighten us some more. As far as I understood he works with people who practice forensic document examination on everyday basis.

Regards,
Yair

 

[Mercutio]

The answer to your question here should be obvious as I had explained what I mean when I say psychology in post #109. A person with a decent reading comprehension should be able to understand this immediately after reading post 109. Now don't understand me wrong, I'm sure you have a good reading comprehension it's just that you argue for the sake of argument so you appear as if not understanding this.
My point #2 was to say that psychology as I mean it or to make it first grade clear that clinical psychology is done in scientific ways. The source was to show where:

came from.

You are so close... do you understand that your source in #2 is defining a different "psychology" than you specified in #1? This is why your claim to have "explained what [you] mean when you say psychology" is subject to challenge. If you have explained what you mean, why then do you quote a definition by someone who does not use it as you do?

It's not methodology which matters. It is also very important of course but not the criteria that is most important. Repeatability of experiments or better yet theoretical experiments is even more important. If I say that I have discovered some amazing new type of radiation (N-Rays maybe?) but no one can repeat this and verify it then no matter how methodological I have been, my data will become useless as it could have been generated with bias (sounds familiar doesn't it?).

Remember, some 300 papers on N-rays were published; roughly 100 researchers claimed to have observed them. Only when a tighter methodology and double-blind testing were applied did it become apparent that they were an artifact.

Physics as an exact science is a description of the fundamental laws of nature associated with this field.

And it is your assertion that these fundamental laws can be known perfectly? (I am asking--I do not wish to put words in your mouth.) Did you look at the "Knowledge or Certainty" stuff?

Why do I need to provide a 'real world' experiment? In theoretical experiments all the data are known and their results are repeatable anywhere anytime. Do I really need to provide papers for this? It is written everywhere. Here is one for example where an FDTD numerical technique (Finite Difference Time Domain) can predict in 100% accuracy the wave propagation through a double negative media.
http://ceta-p5.mit.edu/metamaterials/papers/external/2003/ziolkowski_pre_2003.pdf

To answer your initial question--because you are comparing to "real world" psychological experiments. It would not be fair to compare theory on one hand to practice on the other.

Its conclusions (if correct (and they are correct)) are absolute like for example that causality is maintained in DNG media only if it is dispersive. This will always be true no matter where you do the test or when. this is a good example of exact science in action. Can psychoanalysis do that?

I need your help reading your linked paper. On page 5 (lower left), I read "Inserting the proposed solution (22) into Eqs. (12), one finds that id does not exactly solve them. The defects in this proposed solution occur as [delta]-function contributions at t = t₀ and t = t₀ + T. Similarly, inserting the proposed solution (23) into Eqs (12), one finds that it also is not an exact solution and its failings as an exact solution occur as defects proportional to the derivatives of the turn-on and turn-off portions of the envelope function g. Note, however, that the CW portions of both of these proposed solutions do satsify the Maxwell equations. Consequently, since the defects are highly localized, we will take Eqs. (22) and (23) as approximate solutions for the DNG case." Figures 11 and 12 present differences between predicted result and approximate analytical solution as well. Is this a case of "the theory is right, but the observations are fuzzy", or "the theory is right--it is reality that has it wrong", or what? (I absolutely acknowledge the distinct possibility that I am misunderstanding the paper.)

Oh, and no, psychoanalysis cannot do that. Not even close. Heck, Terrence Hines has chapters in his "pseudoscience and the paranormal" book attacking psychoanalysis as pseudoscience.

Again with the terms. Terms are very very important indeed escpecially after I have clarified them a thousand times.

But so far, only have used "psychoanalysis" where it was proper a grand total of once. And gotten a straight answer when you did.

o.k. I have nothing new to add so I'll stop here.

 

[Blu]

If you read my handwriting and it's all a load of scrawl across the page, then you can be sure that I was in a lazy feckin' mood and needed to jot something down fast.

If you read my handwriting and it's all neat and tidy, you can tell that I'm applying for a new job.

What more proof do you need that graphology works?