Chapter 1 Flashcards
Epiricism
- knowledge that comes from (is observed through) the 5 senses making it verifiable by other people
- clear evidence, not subjective
Theories
- set of statements that describes general principles about how variables relate to one another
5 things that make a good theory
Good theories are tentative
- willing to modify or adapt a theory when it is challenged (instead of dismissing the contrary data/findings)
5 things that make a good theory
Good theories are falsifiable
- can at least be proven wrong
5 things that make a good theory
Good theories are rigorosly evaluated
- tested over and over again
- repeated evidence
5 things that make a good theory
Good theories are parsimonious
- explain evidence w/the fewest possible assumptions
- based on logic + evidence
Do studies prove theories?
- no
- cannot confirm 100% fact, can only find evidence that supports it
- can’t test everyone
Data
- a set of observations
Hypothesis
- statement that clearly + specifically indicates the nature of the expected relationship between variables under study
- is consistent w/but goes beyond previous research
- offers a prediction about what will happen
Ideally, hypotheses are preregistered. What does that mean?
- designed before collecting data
- researcher states publicly what the study’s outcome is expected to be
- not convincing if data is collected first (sketchy)
Replication
- the study is conducted again to test whether the result is consistent
Applied research
- conduct their research in a local, real-world context
- done with a practical problem (ex. is this setup working in a classroom)
Basic research
- goal is to enhance a general body of knowledge
Translational research
- use of lessons from basic research to develop and test applications to health care, psychotherapy, or other forms of treatment and intervention
What are the 5 steps of the theory cycle?
1) theory
2) research question
3) research design (hypothesis)
5) preregistration
6) data
Merton’s scientific norms
Universalism
- scientific claims are evaluated according to their merit, independent of the researcher’s creds or reputation
Merton’s scientific norms
Communality
- scientific knowledge is created by a community, and it’s findings belong to the community
Merton’s scientific norms
Disinterestedness
- scientists strive to discover the truth, whatever it is
- not swayed by antything
Merton’s scientific norms
Organized skepticism
- scientists question everything, including their own theories
Comparison Groups
- helps us compare what would happen both with and without the thing we’re interested in
Why is experience not a reliable source of information?
- we tend to jump to causal conclusions
What are 3 issues with using experience as a source of information?
1) experience has no comparison groups
2) experience is confounded - it is something that confuses us and makes it difficult for us to explain what we see because there can be more 1 way to interpret it
3) experience is probabilistic - no comparison groups, may misunderstand things, isn’t based on probabilities like research is
Confounds
- alternative explanations for an outcome
- found data “confuses” us
- think one thing caused another but it wasn’t the only cause
What does: research results are probabilistic: mean?
- findings do not explain all cases of the time (not 100% correct)
- research conclusions are based on observed patterns that can’t be seen without comparison groups
