Lecture 4 Flashcards
Are methods important?
They are the most important part of science
Thought experiment on simple vehicles
Construction
Observations with light
Interpretations (Psychological)
Machines developed which a sensor is either inhibitory or excitatory when light is shon on it and connects to an engine. There are two sensors at the front and two engines at the back, each connected to a wheel.
We observe the behaviour when light is shon on two vehicles. One turns away, one turns toward the light. If we did not know their design, how would psychologists describe this behaviour?
These behaviors could be interpreted as fear and aggression!
Thought experiment on simple vehicles: The problem with interpretative explanations
What kind of explanation would help with this?
If we understand their circuity, we will not find a section that facilitates fear or aggression.
We may be convinced that it is but we will not find evidence to support this
Very complex behaviour could theoretically arise from simple circuits. However, it is hard to get evidence for these. Better to create simple hypotheses first
ie they approach or turn away when they see light vs they are afraid or aggressive.
Complex vs simple hypotheses
When trying to understand cognitive or behavioral mechanisms, it is useful to consider an explanation that is simple because very complex behaviour can arise from a small set of principles.
Ockham’s razor
Why? They are easier to falsify or test because in light of contradicting outcomes, more complex explanations can generate ad hoc hypotheses to explain away inconsistencies
The limits of reductionism
Asking what level - why would you do it
If you do true reductionism, you always stop at matter/antimatter.
Does it help to do this in psychology? Is mind reducible to atoms? Is that useful to do?
It is helpful to ask when is my explanation sufficient and when I should go deeper. You can explain its behavior on one level but if we added a higher level of explanation such as psychodynamic or cognitive, would this add something about the true nature that reductionism would miss?
A problem for recutionism is
emergent behavior. Complex systems can be described in simple linear functions but the arising, emergent behavior might be unpredictable.
What is the appropriate approach to understand behaviour?
Useful to choose dependent on your question
ie for schizophrenia a psychologist might be happy at the behavioral level. A pharmacologist might want gene level or chemical interactions f they wanted to develop a drug for it.
The reductionist approach might miss something
.Does everyone think this is a problem
Such as emergent behaviour
Some don’t care and argue that if you cannot de=scribe it, you should not try Wittegstine
What does the robot experiment teach us?
To be careful about what we are thinking about because in the end there is rarely ONE approach that describes everything.
We also need to be careful what we assume, as what we observe can also be created by simple circuits hence, it is best to strive for simple, falsifiable theories.
Reductionism can be thought of as a
tool
arguably the best one but it is very rare anything gets fully reduced to matter. The level it needs to be reduced to depends on your question
ie schizophremia for a psychologist and a pharmacologist
Rationalism
Deduction via logic and reason leads to knowledge about the mind
Observation is not needed and potentially misleading
Empericism
Use observations to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses
Inductivism
Make observations which you use to induce theories, these induce hypotheses leading to more observations which arrive at laws
Falsificationism
A statement or hypothesis which is capable of being refuted is deducted from a theory. Test are designed to refute the predictions not to confirm the theory.
Theories allow for many predictions
If one is wrong, the theory is wrong
So you can strictly test them
If prediction is wrong, you must go back and amend the theory (Or scrap it).
Observations
Ideally unbiased start us off in science but these are never unbiased. We usually have an idea of what we are looking for. These are subjective
Status of data/facts
Data do not equal facts
They are usually produced by measurements and quantifications and hence are intertwined within a theory.
You have to interpret them with said theory.
Facts do not exist objectively but rather emerge from a context, that of the overlying theory
Fact = Data + Theory
Status of theory
Reflect research biases, prejudices, values and assumptions, the history of the scientist and the community and are embedded in a social context.
The social nature of science
Doing science is a human behavior - scientists are part of what they observe. Objectivity is a standard only achievable to a degree.
All science is a social activity. Conventions, traditions, shared assumptions and things like peer review which ensures controversial petitions are mediated out
There might not be a pure science and neither a purely subjective science: what is scientifically valid is a matter of conventions. Sticking to these ensures the validity of the science (across time) but not its objectivity.
By using the same conventions we can keep comparisons with older material but this just reflects continued cultural situation. Sometimes retards science by things such as peer reviews rejecting new perspectives.
Constructivism in science, the Khun cycle of revolutions
preparagdim period
Contending schools
Random fact generating
No science (No agreed set of methods)
Normal science
One paradigm
No schools
Puzzle solving within this methodology
Anomaly
Anomaly appears
Important and not compatible with paradigm
Could be shelved or might lead to
Crisis insecurity loosening or paradigm conditions Contending theories Old successful scientists oppose new thoughts
Revolution
Younger scientists adhere to new paradigms
Some older scientists (often less successful) switch sides
Old ones die
Go back to Normal science with the young rebels now representing the establishment
Science advances funeral by funeral
Observer effects (Quantum physics)
If you preform the double split experiment you will see evidence of light acting as a wave. If you now observe from the side, it begins to act as a photon again.
Does this mean reality is not real?
This shows that the act of measurement changes what we are measuring. What is observed is the observed thing and the observer combined. The world is generated by you at the moment of observation.
Others agree because we all use similar methods to observe and measure. If you changed these, you might change the observation.
The experiment as a social sitiuation
There is an interaction between the observer and the observed. The underlying assumption is typically that the researcher does not influence the participant but this is not true.
Two underlying assumptions in psychological experiemtents
1) researchers only influence the participants behavior to the extent that they decide what hypothesis is tested and how to operationalize the variables etc.
2) The only factors influencing the behavior od participants are the objectively defined variables manipulated by the researcher.
Not true
Experimenter bias
Exposure of male rats and mice to male experiments but not female experimenters produces pain inhibition.
Probably cos testosterones in pheromones’.
Pain intolerance might make the mice/rats vulnerable to attack so they hide it.
Shows how the experimenters might influence the participants.
Hawthorne effect
Hypothesis: being observed leads people c=to change their behaviour
Method (observational) researchers manipulated many independent variables and measured the DV: rate of work
Results: workers increased output irrespective of what the changes to the conditions, whenever they were observed
Conc being observed can change behavior
