WAYS of Knowing

1
WAYS of Knowing
Tenacity unquestioning faith
(intuition) Authority believe what told Logic
argue a belief Experience common sense direct
experience -empiricism, observation,
experiment (science)
scientists influenced by all four ways of knowing
2

• Science can be defined as a process or as content
  or both
• Science is an accumulation of integrated
  knowledge
• An activity of discovering important variables in
  nature and relating those variables and
  explaining those relationships

3
Psychology as a SCIENCE IS

• Deterministic - can predict world (probabilistic)
• Objective
• Data-driven - term only means supported by
  evidence
• Empirical questions asked and answered by
  systematic observations and experiences.
• Conclusions tentative

4
nonscientific scientific
General approach Intuitive Empirical
Observation Casual, uncontrolled Systematic, controlled
Reporting Biased, subjective Unbiased, objective
Concepts Ambiguous with surplus meaning Clear definitions, operational specificity
Instruments Inaccurate, imprecise Accurate, precise
Measurements Not valid or reliable Valid and reliable
Hypotheses Untestable Testable
Attitude Uncritical, accepting Critical, skeptical

5
(No Transcript)
6
Experience is not infallible

• bias
• confirmation, notice what fits
• availability , notice the unusual

7
Scientific and everyday approaches

• Science empirical and requires systematic
  controlled observation
• Intuition feels right but our perception may be
  biased or logic faulty e.g tendency to perceive
  relationship when there is none.

8
Observation casual rather than systematic e.g
Clever Hans Systematic and CONTROLLED is the
essential distinction manipulating one variable
at a time
9

• To achieve control in a research situation,
  researchers manipulate independent variables or
  select levels of individual differences to
  determine their effect on behavior
• Dependent variables are measures of behavior used
  to assess the effects of independent variables.

10

• Scientists adopt a skeptical attitude and are
  cautious about accepting explanations until
  sufficient empirical evidence is obtained.
• People make mistakes including scientists (see
  ways of knowing)
• Yet science is based on trust truth of
  reporting and trust in observations of others

11

• Concepts need clear definition
• NEED Operational definition
• explains a concept solely in terms of operations
  used to produce and measure it. (balance this
  against having a meaningful definition)

12

• Measure heart rate.
• Measure creativity.
• Measure happiness.
• Measure intelligence.

13

• Scientific reporting is unbiased and objective
  clear communication of concepts occurs when
  operational definitions are used
• Science is public results must be shared

14

• Scientific instruments are accurate and precise
  physical and psychological measurements should be
  valid and reliable.

15
Measurement the record of controlled observations

• physical measurement, psychological measurement
• VALIDITY truthfulness of measure (does it
  measure what we say it does)
• RELIABILTY consistency

16

• A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for a
  phenomenon testable hypotheses have clearly
  defined concepts (operational definitions) are
  not circular and do not refer to unobservable
  concepts.

17

• Hypotheses a tentative explanation for
  something (how and why questions)
• Not testable if concepts cannot be defined

18
Psychology Goals

• Describing behavior eg attractiveness ratings in
  different times
• Predicting behavior election results,
  occupational aptitude
• Explaining behavior causation at different
  levels of analysis
• Controlling/changing behavior education,
  clinical application

19
Pseudoscience
-associates/mimics science (credibility) -relies
on anecdotal evidence -avoids disproof -oversimpli
fies -selective evidence -cannot generate
reliable predictions Psychology goals
-especially vulnerable to pop/pseudoscience Good
examples phrenology (Flourens), ESP,
subliminal tapes, horoscopes
20

• Greenwald,A.G. Spangenberg, E.R., Pratkanis,
  A.R., Eskenazi, J. (1991). Double-blind tests
  of subliminal self-help audiotapes. Psychological
  Science, 2, 119-122.
• Memory or self-esteem tapes