At some point, a complex idea from [topic] was distilled down into a simple piece of advice for neonates. One of those neonates took it as gospel, and told all their friends how this advice formed the fundamental basis of [topic]. Examples include “if someone touches their nose, they’re lying”
The reasoning for “if someone touches their nose, they’re lying” is:
If someone lies they feel anxiety. It’s well known that anxiety can produce effects like someone getting red because of changes in blood circulation due to tension changes. Some tension changes can make a person want to touch the corresponding area.
Something along those lines is the motivation for that tip. The problem is that there are many reason why someone touches their nose and it’s no good tell unless you calibrated it for a person.
Of course you could say that the fact that I know the explanation suggest that I know something about the topic. I’m probably better than average at lie detection. On the other hand I have not practiced that skill well enough to trust my skills to draw strong conclusions.
On the other hand in biology there are many cases where I have true beliefs where the justification isn’t deeper than “the textbook says so”. There no underlying logic that can tell you what a neurotransmitter does in every case. Evolution is quite random.
In many cases I could tell you which textbook or university lecture is responsible for me believing a certain fact about biology.
Facts backed by empirical research are better than facts backed by theoretical reasoning like the one in the nose touching example.
I’ve heard a few justifications for the nose-touching example, and the one you provided is new to me.
The nose-touching example could alternatively have an empirical basis rather than a theoretical one. It came to mind because areas like body language, “soft skills” and the like are, in my experience, rife with people who’ve learned a list of such “facts”.
The reasoning for “if someone touches their nose, they’re lying” is: If someone lies they feel anxiety. It’s well known that anxiety can produce effects like someone getting red because of changes in blood circulation due to tension changes. Some tension changes can make a person want to touch the corresponding area.
Something along those lines is the motivation for that tip. The problem is that there are many reason why someone touches their nose and it’s no good tell unless you calibrated it for a person.
Of course you could say that the fact that I know the explanation suggest that I know something about the topic. I’m probably better than average at lie detection. On the other hand I have not practiced that skill well enough to trust my skills to draw strong conclusions.
On the other hand in biology there are many cases where I have true beliefs where the justification isn’t deeper than “the textbook says so”. There no underlying logic that can tell you what a neurotransmitter does in every case. Evolution is quite random. In many cases I could tell you which textbook or university lecture is responsible for me believing a certain fact about biology.
Facts backed by empirical research are better than facts backed by theoretical reasoning like the one in the nose touching example.
I’ve heard a few justifications for the nose-touching example, and the one you provided is new to me.
The nose-touching example could alternatively have an empirical basis rather than a theoretical one. It came to mind because areas like body language, “soft skills” and the like are, in my experience, rife with people who’ve learned a list of such “facts”.