Deck 1: B: Psychology and Scientific Thinking

Question 1

Analyze how the warning signs of pseudoscience are often examples of violations of the principles of critical thinking.

Answer 1

Answers will vary but should contain the following information for full credit.
--Overuse/Use of ad hoc immunizing hypotheses violates the principle of falsifiability because it involves giving after-the-fact explanations that describe the negative findings of the research.Overreliance on anecdotes may also violate the spirit of falsifiability because anecdotes are difficult at best (impossible at worst)to verify.
--Overreliance on anecdotes violates the principle of correlation versus causation.People assume that the world operates in the way they have observed,but just having an example of something does not mean that one has established a cause-and-effect relationship.
--Overreliance on anecdotes violates the principle of replicability.It's often hard,if not impossible to verify the truthfulness of the supposed claims from testimonials or anecdotes.Lack of self-correction also violates this principle because a lack of replication should lead to self-correction but many pseudoscientific beliefs persist anyway.
--Exaggerated claims violate the principle of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.The kind of evidence needed for most claims either cannot be obtained or is much more ordinary than the proponents of pseudoscience would wish to admit.
--Absence of connectivity is a violation of ruling out rival hypotheses and parsimony.

Question 2

What are the three main logical fallacies in psychological thinking that can predispose us to pseudoscientific beliefs? Describe and provide an example of each.

Answer 2

Answers will vary but should contain the points that reflect the following information for full credit.
--Emotional reasoning fallacy.The emotional reasoning fallacy is the error of using our emotions as guides for evaluating the validity of a claim (some psychologists also refer to this tendency as the affect heuristic).If we're honest with ourselves,we'll realize that findings that challenge our preexisting beliefs often make us angry,whereas findings that confirm these beliefs often make us happy or at least relieved.We shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that because a scientific claim makes us feel uncomfortable or indignant,it's necessarily wrong.
--Bandwagon fallacy.The bandwagon fallacy is the error of assuming that a claim is correct just because many people believe it.It's an error because popular opinion isn't a dependable guide to the accuracy of an assertion.
--Not me fallacy.The not me fallacy may be the most widespread and dangerous of all logical fallacies.It's the error of believing we're immune from errors in thinking that afflict other people.This fallacy can get us into deep trouble because it can lead us to conclude mistakenly that we don't require the safeguards of the scientific method.Many pseudoscientists fall into this trap: They're so certain their claims are right-and uncontaminated by mistakes in their thinking-that they don't bother to conduct scientific studies to back up these claims.

Question 3

What does the concept of falsifiability refer to? Explain what it means for a theory to be falsifiable,the implications of the falsifiability principle,and what characteristics make a good theory.

Answer 3

Answers will vary but should contain the points that reflect the following information for full credit.
--In order for a claim to be meaningful,it must be falsifiable,that is,capable of being disproved.Some students misunderstand this point,confusing the question of whether a theory is falsifiable with whether it's false.The principle of falsifiability doesn't mean that a theory must be false to be meaningful.Instead,it means that for a theory to be meaningful,it could be proved wrong if there were certain types of evidence against it.For a claim to be falsifiable,its proponent must state clearly in advance,not after the fact,which findings would count as evidence for and against the claim.
--A key implication of the falsifiability principle is that a theory that explains everything-that is,a theory that can account for every conceivable outcome-in effect explains nothing.That's because a good scientific theory must predict only certain outcomes,while excluding others.
--Good scientific theories take risks.By a risky prediction,Popper meant a forecast that stands a decent chance of being wrong.The best theories make risky predictions and emerge unscathed.Most bad theories don't take such risks.
--The bottom line: Whenever we evaluate a psychological claim,we should ask ourselves whether one could,in principle,disprove it,or whether it's consistent with any conceivable body of evidence.

Question 4

Apply the critical thinking principles discussed in Chapter 1 to a discussion of how science is an approach to evidence.

Question 5

Identify and describe the three crucial warning signs that a claim may be pseudoscientific.

Question 6

The textbook authors noted that many people misunderstand the role of a theory in science.Analyze how these misunderstandings are related to low levels of scientific literacy.

Question 7

Describe the dangers of pseudoscience and why the dangers should matter to you.

Question 8

Evaluate critically the kind of information that one gains from common sense.