Something which I have addressed in some previous articles of mine that is pseudoscientific is the concept of the subconscious mind, with subconscious here meaning outside of what the conscious mind is capable of perceiving. By this definition, even if it existed, by its very nature it cannot be seen by either a first-person subject or by other researchers [1]. Because the subconscious could never be observed and thus could never be quantified even if it does exist, it is incapable of being demonstrated to exist by science.
Another pseudoscientific matter is the doctrine of physiognomy. Physiognomy is the attempt to discern someone's personality features or moral character by assessing that person's body parts, especially--but not limited to--facial features. It is a wonderful example of a pseudo-scientific endeavor that is littered with errors. In the case of physiognomy, we have something that is both illogical and unscientific, since its conclusions neither rest upon valid premises nor can be established on the basis of empirical observation.
What kind of connections between personalities and bodily features does physiognomy seek to uncover? Perhaps a certain nose shape will be seen as indicating a deceitful spirit, or maybe a certain eye shape is held to mean that someone has a tendency to be hardworking or honest. Maybe someone who is deemed "attractive" [2] is also expected to be intelligent. Another example of physiognomy might be thinking that a person with large genitals must have a high sex drive. Of course, the allegedly corresponding personality traits are purely arbitrary, since there is no logical connection tying them to the body parts. Neither logic nor repeated empirical observation (the scientific method) establishes a connection of any sort between a certain sized or shaped nose, eye, or other body part and a certain moral habit or personality characteristic.
 |
| Can someone tell if this man is honest, dishonest, consistent, kind, selfish, aggressive, or calm, etc, just by looking at his face? Not at all! |
One does not even need science to realize that physiognomy is a bullshit discipline, since logic proves, entirely a priori, that it does not follow whatsoever from having body parts of a certain type or size that one must have certain personality traits. Just because someone has a specific facial structure does not mean that he or she by necessity has some behavioral characteristic that is revealed by the appearance of the physical body. The only way that physical appearance and mental traits are correlated is in people with certain bodily and mental disabilities. For instance, the face of someone with Down's syndrome may look abnormal compared to other faces, but even this has nothing to do with judging moral character or basic personality types.
Though physiognomy is, fortunately, not widely embraced on the popular level these days, the historical development of such an asinine discipline exemplifies the idiocies one can stoop to when straying from logic. Let it serve as an example of what stupidities result when logic and science are exchanged for fallacies and pseudoscience.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-subconscious.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/01/an-analogy-for-subconscious.html
[2]. Although any claim about beauty (like "His body is very attractive," "That color looks great," or "Her hair looks very beautiful today") is by necessity either true or false, all perceptions of beauty are purely subjective, hence the quotation marks used above.
No comments:
Post a Comment