Research Methods: Scientific Thinking
Download as PPTX, PDF6 likes5,448 views
This document provides an overview of scientific thinking and the scientific method. It discusses different ways of knowing, including through authority, logic, and empiricism. The key characteristics of science are that questions must be answerable, theories are tentative and open to revision, and theories can be falsified through experiments. The scientific method involves making observations, asking questions, developing hypotheses, and testing hypotheses through experiments. The document contrasts science with pseudoscience and provides examples to illustrate the differences.
Research Methods: Scientific Thinking
- 1. Scientific Thinking Brian J. Piper, Ph.D., M.S.
- 2. Objectives • What is this course? • Why take this course? • Ways of knowing: – Authority – Logic – Empiricism • Characteristics of Science (versus pseudoscience) – Answerable questions – Tentative – Falsification
- 3. Why a course on research methods? • Required? – Undergrad – Graduate (Basic or Clinical) • Foundation for later courses (process versus content)
- 4. Ways of Knowing: Authority
- 5. Ways of Knowing: Authority • Claudius Ptolemy (90-168): geocentric • Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): helocentric
- 6. Ways of Knowing: Logic
- 7. Ways of Knowing: Empiricism • Empiric: Greek (empiric), Latin root (experientia) of experience & experiment • Knowledge comes from personal experience.
- 8. Scientific Characteristics: Tentative • Science is never 100.0% certain. • Evolution & punctuated equilibrium • Medicine – Mammograms: USPSTF: 40-49? – Hormone Replacement Therapy: breast cancer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammograms
- 10. Scientific Method • Observation: my nephew has problems • Question: Why? • Hypothesis: Smoking during pregnancy, but not quitting, has negative outcomes • Online study of non- smokers, smokers, quitters Piper et al. (2011). Drug & Alcohol Dependence.
- 11. Scientific Characteristics: Falsification • Freud: – Id/Ego/Superego – Repression – Co-sleeping • Evolutionary Psychology
- 12. Baloney Detection • How reliable is the source of claim? $ • Do they make similar claims? • Have the claims been independently replicated? • Does this fit with how the world works? • Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? • Where is the majority of evidence? • Is the claimant playing by rules of science? Michael Shermer (14 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
- 13. Baloney Detection • Is claimant providing positive evidence? • Does new theory account for as many phenomenon as the old theory? • Are personal beliefs driving the claim? Michael Shermer (14 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
- 15. Science versus Pseudoscience: Phrenology • Popular Theory (Johann Spurzheim) that: – Personality characteristics would result in measurable bumps on skull (false) – Localization of function (true) • Tested by Pierre Flourens – Lesion study (dogs/pigeons) 1776-1832 1794-1867
- 16. Science versus Pseudoscience: Subliminal Messages • James Vicary presented images for 1/3000th sec of “eat popcorn” or “Drink Coke” on alternating evenings to movie theater patrons (N = 45,699) • He claimed in a press conference that Coke (18.1%) and popcorn (57.7%) sales increased! http://plaza.ufl.edu/cyllek/docs/KCrandall_Thesis2006.pdf
- 17. Science versus Pseudoscience: Accupunture • Chronic back pain patients completed a double-blind study with 6 licensed acupuncturists (4-19 years experience): – Individualized – Standardized – Sham – Usual Care
- 18. Science versus Pseudoscience: Homeopathy • Developed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann • Serial dilutions • Safe (?) but not efficacious 1755-1843
- 19. Science versus Pseudoscience: Crime Scene Profiling • Crime scene is used to infer characteristics of criminal • Focus is on small # Hits, downplays misses (like fortune tellers) John Allen Williams 1960-2009 Malcolm Gladwell
- 20. Science versus Pseudoscience: Are cell phones dangerous to your brain?
- 21. Figure 2. Brain Glucose Metabolic Images Showing Axial Planes at the Level of the Orbitofrontal Cortex Volkow, N. D. et al. JAMA 2011;305:808-813 Copyright restrictions may apply.
- 22. Contrast Science Pseudoscience Falsifiability Yes No Burden of Proof Proponents Skeptics Jargon Moderate High Reliance on anecdote Low High Connectivity with other knowledge High Low Nestor & Schutt, 2012
- 23. “Pop” Science • This may have elements of science, pseudo-science, science-fiction, and popular culture • Examples: – Full moon and psychiatric admissions – Left-brain (verbal/rational)/Right-brain (non- verbal/intuitive)