McEvoy is a polymath; he is engaged _at once_ in two diverse studies. One is
"Judicial language: its use and misuse"; the second is yet untitled, but
concerns a different 'issue'. McEvoy writes about this second project:
"Years spent developing a whole new post-Popperian epistemology based around
how women "know" to synchronise menstruation have, it seems, been years wasted."
I wouldn't think so. Popper would actually be proud of you. For him, it's
REFUDIATION (or refutation, as he prefers to spell this) what matters. So if
your 'whole new post-Popperian epistemology' of 'knowledge' is proved wrong,
that is a bonus for a whole new post-Popperian epistemology of 'knowledge'.
McEvoy expands:
"My doctoral work on how women "know" whether their friend's partners are any
good for them (while the friend doesn't) continues."
His reference is again to his favourite daily, "THE GUARDIAN", and we should
check the facts, with THE TIMES and THE TELEGRAPH, But this is one of Dr.
Dillner's health dilemmas.
To wit: Do women’s periods really synchronise when they live together?
A study claims that the dates of house-mates’ periods move, then align – but
that long-held belief is being challenged by evidence and new studies.
In other words, the first study has been 'refudiated'.
Do women’s menstrual cycles align when they live together?
Dillner writes:
"You know what happens when women live together."
"They start to menstruate together."
"Suddenly everyone craves chocolate and runs out of tampons at the same time.
Not only that, but the chosen cycle often seems to belong to the most assertive
woman."
Vide Grice on the concept of 'assertion', and his polemic with Dummett as to
whether conditional assertion ("If it rains, we go to the cinema") is an
assertion.
Dillner goes on:
"Well that’s biology for you – it must be pheromones or the lunar cycle or
something. Evolutionary anthropologists have suggested that synchrony would
prevent any one woman being monopolised by a single dominant male."
And Popper was a big fan of Darwin (after delivering the Darwin lecture at
Darwin college -- this 'evolutionary' point is what attracted McEvoy to this
'issue', incidentally).
"Ever since Martha McClintock [an Irish surname], a psychologist from Harvard,
published her study of 135 female living in a together, it has been an accepted
truth that menstrual cycles synchronise when women live together."
It was never questioned, alla Popper, whether this could be merely a "Harvard
phenomenon," since McClintock's corpus involved only 135 undergraduates at
Radcliffe.
Dillner goes on:
"McClintock's] study, based on an analysis of about eight cycles per woman,
found that roommates and close friends saw the average number of days between
the starts of their periods fall from eight or nine to five days."
"A control group of randomly chosen women had cycles that remained 10 days
apart from each."
But, and this is what makes Dillner's piece a dilemma that McEvoy thinks
refudiates his post-Popperian epistemology ('of knowledge', as he rather
otiosely adds):
"A study performed later than McClintock's, however, found that 80% of women
believed in the synchronising phenomenon with 70% saying that it was a pleasant
experience."
"It’s a powerful concept after all – that the empathy of women can make their
periods fall in line. But is it really true?"
Dillner offers a solution to the dilemma.
"Well, if you are one of the 80% of women who believes in synchronicity – brace
yourself. It isn’t a thing."
"Since McClintock’s study there has been enough research with NEGATIVE [i.e.
refudiatory] results to move menstrual synchronicity into urban mythology."
Unless you live in the countryside of Ireland (McClintock is an Irish surname
-- in this case it would be suburban mythology).
Dillner goes on, writing from the urban centre of London -- the see of "THE
GUARDIAN":
"Many studies have tried to replicate McClintock’s findings – some have
succeeded, but more have not."
This shows Dillner is a Popperian: "some have succeeded" is a bonus for
INDUCTIVISM; but "more have not" embraces Popper's methodology of refudiation.
Popper is more extreme here. "Many may have succeeded, but just given that ONE
has not REFUDIATES McClintock," he would say.
Dillner goes on:
"Criticisms of McClintock’s work include statistical errors – not controlling
for chance in the results and inflating the initial differences in the onset of
menstrual cycles that led to synchronicity being over stated."
Popper was skeptical about statistics, since he saw it as an offshoot of
inductivism. Plus chance was too metaphysical a concept to enter his
epistemology, but inflation was okay.
Dillner goes on:
"A study of Dogon women in west Africa, who were segregated into menstrual
huts, found no synchronicity over 763 days and no effect of the moon on periods
(and these were ideal test conditions, as there was no electricity)."
Not for Geary, who likes to watch television at night. (But then he does not
live in West Africa -- cfr. "Memphis", keyword: northern Africa).
Dillner goes on:
"A study of 186 women in China who lived together for a year also found no
synchronicity."
On the other hand, at that time Sting (an Irish surname) was composing a song
on Synchronicity.
Dillner (not an Irish surname) goes on:
"But the researchers pointed out that the start of periods varied for women,
and cycles were often variable, which could give the false impression of
synchronicity."
Dillner is NOT using 'impression' alla Hume (an author much criticised by
Popper). Hume thinks he is refining Locke's terminology of the way of ideas
(cfr. Grice, the way of words) by distinguishing between
A) an impression, which is direct -- cfr. Russell's sense data.
B) an idea.
A 'false impression' is like a false idea, only different.
Dillner goes on:
"Menstrual cycles can vary from between 21 to 35 days. Stress, weight loss or
illness will all disrupt periods. A study of 26 lesbian couples found no
synchronicity but did find individual menstrual cycles varied by up to 10 days.
So despite the internet refusing to let this myth die –"
or refudiating to let this 'suburban' myth perish --
"you are the owner of your menstrual cycle and no friend, however close, can
control it."
Not even Popper, hence McEvoy's skepticism about the progress of his essay
("It's not been a good week for [it]"). I would encourage to find further
refudiations, and even to spell skepticism skepticism, as _I_ would!
Cheers,
Speranza
