Science and Statistics Flashcards
What is a logical fallacy?
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning which may sound convincing but are actually flawed, largely due to lack of evidence supported for them.
Use of invalid or faulty reasoning to construct an argument which might appear to be well reasoned if unnoticed.
What are the 3 types of logical fallacies studied in the Psych course?
Argument from authority
Ad hominem
Appeal to antiquity
What is ‘argument from authority’ in Psychology? What is an example of this?
It is when you believe something is true just because someone very important said it or endorses it.
An example of this is Linus Pauling who won two Nobel Prizes and is hailed one of the founding fathers of molecular biology. However, because he was so respected and very important in society, basically anything that he said was deemed to be true. As a result, he assisted in spreading the medical misconception that vitamin C prevents colds.
What is ‘Ad Hominem’ argument in Psychology? What is an example of this?
This is where you disagree with what someone said but instead of attacking their claim or evidence, you attack them for being of low status or being disreputable.
For example something might go along the lines of ‘Barrack Obama can’t talk about women’s rights because he is a male’ –> apply to scientific world
What is ‘Appeal to antiquity’ argument in Psychology? What is an example of this?
This is where you believe that something is true just because it has lasted a long time or has existed for a long time.
For example, ‘Homeopathy has been around for 300 years, so it must obviously work’ –> just because it has existed for a long time, it definitely doesn’t mean it works.
What is the MAIN difference between science and pseudoscience
A science is a body of hypothesis based upon observation and experiment. A pseudoscience is a body of hypotheses treated at true, but without a consistent body of supporting experimental evidence.
In simple terms, science is more legit and reliable compared to pseudoscience
What are 8 basic characteristics of science?
- An attitude of humility, wonder, and commitment to understanding the truth. You accept you do not know everything, you appreciate how complex the world is, and you will not rest until the truth is discovered.
- Understanding the methods used and the methods necessary to generate evidence in science.
- Being able to distinguish between theories and evidence in science and being committed to fully test the truth of theories using evidence.
- A realisation that understandings are distinct from the individuals who propose or support them.
- Accepting that evidence-based conclusions will always be probabilistic in nature, such that science represents a continuous process of improving upon what is known.
- All theories and evidence must be open to criticism. For this to be possible there must be complete transparency in how evidence was gathered.
- Systems of standard communication allowing transmission of findings and criticisms to be world-wide. Every science has peer reviewed journals and conferences.
- Merit based qualifications and grant application procedures which reward skill in research. Skill in research is demonstrated by successfully attacking existing theories and replacing them with better ones.
What are 8 basic characteristics of pseudoscience?
- An attitude of arrogance that the main answer is already known so there is no need for more study and reflection.
- An acceptance of anecdotal and poorly controlled historical evidence in place of
systematically collected evidence. - An inability to distinguish between theories and evidence, such that only supporting evidence is gathered (confirmation bias), or that attacking the evidence associated with alternative accounts is all there is supporting the theory (appeal to ignorance).
- An “important” individual (like a cult leader in the past or present) who created the theory and is forever associated with it. Evidence for the theory may be lacking but the individual’s
endorsement is considered sufficient support. - Probabilities (and often mathematics itself) are poorly understood and instead are replaced with certainties.
- The evidence supporting the theory was collected behind closed doors or by “experts” who never explain what they did to collect it.
- One way transmission of information such that it may be delivered in conferences and journals but cannot be questioned or criticised.
- Qualifications are not formalised, or have little value, and can be bought with minimal training or supervision. Status and/or promotions are guaranteed by always supporting and never criticising currently held beliefs.
What is the main feature of a pseudoscience compared to science?
Pseudoscience can’t be critiqued because people won’t allow for it to be critiqued –> no progress. This is compared to science where there is constant critique of theories and evidence
What are the few questions which can be used to distinguish science from pseudoscience?
Transparency?
System of constant review?
Evidence assessed on merit?
Humility of approaching understanding?
What is the replication crisis?
The replication crisis occurs out of a need to be able to replicate the methods utilised in a study to ensure similar results.
However, the issue of ‘replication crisis’ occurs when the results can’t be reproduced or replicated to an acceptable standard despite following the methods.
What are some causes of the replication crisis?
Pressure to publish –> leads many scientists to publish papers which often can’t be replicated because of too complicated design or lack of transparency of design due to having to work quickly to reach publication dates
Publications want new findings –> don’t want you to see if some other theory works –> lack of replication
Publications want significant findings –> may manipulate date to meet these expectations which may disprove earlier theories
Results in both experiments are interpreted in a bias way
Scientists attempting replication are unskilled/unsophisticated and are thus unable to replicate findings
Original responses were falsified
Differences in sample sizes (i.e. original might have small sample size compared to the re-do which might have a large sample size –> findings are more accurate compared to original)
(time acting as a confounding factor)Findings in an original study may be true for some people in certain circumstances (such as historically), however might not be true universally or enduring. For example, imagine that a survey in the 1950s found a strong majority of respondents to have trust in gov officials. Now imagine the same survey administered today, with vastly different results –> replication crisis. This doesn’t invalidate the original results but instead suggests that attitudes have shifted over time instead.
Quality of replication ma not be up to standard
How do you fix the replication crisis?
pre publish hypothesis and methods (allows careful scrutiny of the method which might lead to its inability to be replicated –> fixing the replication crisis)
Have raw data available(reduces the possibility of misinterpreting data)
Encourage direct replications (copying the method to the point)
What is professional integrity?
It involves demonstrating behaviours that are consistent with the standards for professional and ethical conduct.
Thus, for researchers they must have be able to distinguish their personal and professional selves in an ethical context. (Can’t let their personal beliefs override their professional knowledge)
If you have strong personal beliefs which are profoundly different to those supported by science, you either need to set them aside while practising, change them or leave the profession
It depends on your understanding of the relevant science
What is an example of having bad professional integrity?
Imagine you become a well known psychologist practising therapy X, but after hours you tweet that therapy X is actually dangerous and therapy Y (for which there is no scientific support) is far better. This would mean allowing your personal factors override your professional side which is an example of bad professional integrity
What is the mechanism in science which allows it to succeed?
It is the sense of being always encouraged to critique current theories which have either just been developed or stood the test of time. This allows for better theories to be established which thereby allows science to succeed on a greater scale through advancing knowledge and understanding.
Every scientist is motivated to disprove the old theories (even their own), because of a realisation that the current understanding is not the best
Why is transparency important in science?
In research, transparency about the data documentation and storage is important to ensure sound credibility and to allow for the reproducibility of experiments.
Open transparency to scientific knowledge also allows policy makers and public to use research findings to make informed decisions.
More importantly, transparency allows for many things to be critiqued. For example, the method of a certain experiment could be critiqued due to transparency of it –> the experiment can become better
Why is scepticism important in science?
Scepticism coupled with curiosity typically inspire scientists to constantly ‘attack’ and ‘doubt’ theories which have been established. This allows for the potential of the theories to be improved and thereby improve our understanding of science.
In science, scepticism involves recognising that the current theories aren’t necessarily perfect. It is thus important to constantly maintain scepticism because no theory is perfect, and science recognises that
Scepticism also allows the researcher to maintain an objective approach to developing research hypohthesis
How does transparency and sceptisism allow for the continuous improvement of understanding in science?
Transparency allows for the different methods and evidence for theories to be evident to the public. This thereby allows for many to develop scepticism to certain parts of the theory/evidence. In turn this stimulates even greater analysis and criticism of the current theory.
As a result of this, various other hypotheses are proposed about other possible explanations. Despite having these vast array of possible explanations, a couple may be picked to propose a new theory, which in turn could contribute to a greater understanding of the world.
This cycle continues to exist, thereby allowing for the constant improvement of scientific theories
What is critical thinking?
Critical thinking is defined as the mental process of actively and skillfully perception, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of collected information through observation, experience and communication that leads to a decision for action.
Should critical thinking skills be used with care and respect?
Yes
Why should critical thinking skills be used with care and respect
This is largely because science is effortful for everyone, and while there are some ‘easy to mock’ pseudo sciences out there, almost everyone is a sucker for something.
Additionally, because science is a system founded on probabilities, it doesn’t result in ultimate truths. Thus, although a lot of evidence may point to a certain conclusion, we can’t use our critical thinking skills to assume that that is the only possible right answer. Thus, it has to be used with care when critiquing other people if you have a set topic that you perceive to be true
What should you ask people if they believe in some sort of pseudo science?
How much is it costing them, compared to the comfort they are receiving?
is it placing them in any danger?
Is it placing others in danger
What are people in science (authorities)?
Ideally science has no authorities or experts which are beyond criticism (or at least a lack of authority).
However, formally authorities in science
What are theories in science?
Theories are a formal explanation of the relationship among a set of observations. These observations provide evidence for the theory
What is evidence in science?
It is a set of proof for a certain fact or information which indicates whether the belief or proposition is true or valid
What is the difference between theories and evidence in science?
Theories utilise evidence to come up with a theory?
What is the difference between the people, theories and evidence in science
The people in science are the people who synthesise the evidence to develoop theories
Theories are the formal explanation of a certain relationship between presented evidence
Evidence refers to a set of proof for certain theories or are rather observations made by the people in science. Evidence may be gathered by people in science
Explain how the people, theories and evidence in science interact
The people in science look at the various evidence that they have to develop a theory. In turn, other people in science also analyse the theory and evidence to critique it and potentially come up with a better theory.
What is a scientific construct?
It is an idea or theory often expressed as a single word, but containg lots of assumptions and conceptual relationships.
Why do scientific constructs need to be as clear as possible?
In science, we use them to make predictions, and without them being clear/if they’re convulated, it is harder to create predictions of the scientific construct
On top of that, the things we want to measure are very hard to measure and may not even be real, so through ensuring that constructs are measured properly, it needs to be clear what the definition is.
What are weasel words?
These consist of vague and misleading terminology, even though it may come across as seemingly certain –> that’s what makes it misleading.
What are some examples of weasel words?
‘may’ - implies something probable
‘Scientists say that…’
‘Clinical studies have shown that…’
‘This medicine may help with….’
‘Thought to support’
‘helps in the maintenance of general health and wellbeing’
Why are weasel words used in certain situations?
Used commonly by people selling things such as merchants and politicians because they want to avoid being accountable for claims that they make and may not necessarily end up being true
What are the two ways to define a construct? Are they necessary to establish a scientific construct?
Through a conceptual and operational definition
Yes they are important in establishing a scientific construct
What is a conceptual definition?
This involves describing a construct in terms of what it is and what it isn’t and how it might relate to existing theories. Here, examples are often given.
What is an operational definition?
An operational definition of a construct is an explanation of how the construct might be measured. Given that there are a number of ways to measure a construct
It involves finding a way in which the construct can be observed.
Why is the operational definition of a variable not always ideal?
This is because an operational definition is not a construct, a construct can never be measured directly, so just choosing one of the many ways to measure it doesn’t make it real
Also, they could cause people to hide negative response
What does operationalise mean?
Operationalisation means turning abstract concepts into measurable observations
What are the factors in creating the method to operationalise a construct?
Which aspect of the construct is important to the research?
How much money and time the researchers have
What kind of research design is going to be used to study the construct
What is falsifiability?
Falsifiability refers to the ability for a certain scientific construct, statement or theory to be proven wrong
Why is the concept of falsifiability important to scientific constructs?
This is because falsifiability needs to be applied to theories to determine if it can be confirmed.
In other words, if you create something which can’t be assessed or measured, then there will never be any way to tell if its real - and it can never be disproven, and as a result you can neither know whether it is actually real or not.
What are some examples of non-falsifiable constructs?
Fairies
Invisible forces such as Chi and the Force
Magic
What is reification?
This is when a purely analytic or abstract relationship is treated like a concrete entity. I.e. when an adjective is treated like a noun
What is an example of reification?
The best example is ‘luck’. It is a concept which many refer to when something good happens such as ‘that was lucky!’ However, it becomes a problem when it is reified into a thing
For example, a gambling addict may have a lucky medallion which contains ‘luck’ and will reward them in the future. This can lead to further psychological issues
Also, the use of reification in logical reasoning is a fallacy because _____?
What is pragmatic fallacy?
Pragmatic fallacy is the idea that something MUST be true because it works. This is a further example of the convoluted knots that can be achieved when concepts are tied to objects
What is an example of pragmatic fallacy?
For example, just because therapy based on psychoanalytic concepts helps someone feel better, doesn’t mean the concepts behind the therapy (id, ego, superego and unconscious desires) are valid, instead the person may just feel better because they talked to someone about their problems
Someone might also be politely listened to and treated kindly with needles and then feels better, it doesn’t mean that associated concepts such as chi, ki, prana and meridians are valid. They may actually feel better because they have been treated well and acknowledged
What are some examples of operationalising constructs
Motivation - rate of button pressing
Memory - Number of things recalled
Learning - Decrease in time to solve puzzle
Personality - Score on questionnaire
Arousal - Heart rate, blood pressure
Attitude - Number circled on a scale
What sort of test can be used in psychology to assist in the operalisation of constructs?
Self report measures
What are the downsides to having self report measures?
It is largely because people are dishonest, and often lie in their responses to either not seem too bad or please the researcher.
What does a social desirability scale do?
These are questions randomly placed in the survey to determine if people are lying. If someone has high social desirability, it may mean that other answers to questions in the questionnaire may be inaccurate, leading to the scrapping of the responses.
Social desirability scale measures the persons tendency to lie in a questionnaire/self report, which may lead to the scrapping of the data essentially
What are some sample questions on the social desirability scale? Sample
Note: Response options of True and False should be provided for each statement
- It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged.
- I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way.
- On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability.
- There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right.
- No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener.
- There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone.
- I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.
- I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget.
- I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable.
- I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own.
- There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others.
- I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me.
I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings. - I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings.
Scoring:
Add 1 point to the score for each “True” response to statements 5, 7, 9, 10, and 13. Add 0 points to the score for each “False” response to these statements.
Add 1 point to the score for each “False” response to statements 1,2,3,4,6, 8, 11, and 12. Add 0 points to the score for each “True” response to these statements.
A score of close to 13 means that the person has a strong desire to be socially liked and may indicate that the responses to the questionnaire aren’t genuine and were only made to please the researcher.
What are anecdotes?
Anecdotes are interpreted stories about a single occurrence in the past, and are usually of no scientific value. They have a small sample size
What are the drawbacks/limitations/flaws of anecdotes
Only evidence mentioned in an anecdote is in there to support the theory (no separation of theory and evidence_ –> theory only supported by the evidence mentioned –> results in an in built bias which can be misleading
Anecdotes could change with each retelling
Because they are based on a single instance/observation, whatever happened cant be replicated by a non biased observer
Anecdotes only remembers what the person wants to remember (selective memory)
Only focusses on one potential variable and not others (i.e. I am sick, and did treatment X and then I got better, so X has to work. However this ignores other variables and is only focussing on one–> there could still be other factors at work)
What are case studies?
These involve an intense study about a person / group / topic, however they aim to document everything, no matter if the researcher thinks it will be relevant or not. (I,e, gathering and acknowledging all data to the field / question, no matter if it supports or disproves the hypothesis). However, they do have a small sample size
The key feature is a sense of humility (arising from a desire to discover something not confirm something)
What is the main difference which makes a case study better than an anecdote?
Although the case study is still a small sample size, they have several differences / benefits over the anecdotes, which makes them more reliable:
Objective nature of notes means that alternative explanations are possible later (not just narrowing down to one explanation)
All details whether relevant or not are recorded in a scientific matter –> more systematic
Scientific humility is also a key difference (arising from a desire to DISCOVER something, not CONFIRM something) allowing for successful recording of unbiased data
