Non-Scientific Approaches to Acquiring Knowledge

Psychology 3450W: Experimental Psychology Fall, 2022 Professor Delamater

Contrasting Scientific & Non-Scientific Approaches to Acquiring Knowledge Non-scientific Approaches Include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Intuition Argument from Authority Rationalism Personal Experience Lets look at each of these in a little bit of detail

Intuition From Wikipedia: Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without proof, evidence, or conscious reasoning, or without understanding how the knowledge was acquired. Different writers give the word "intuition" a great variety of different meanings, ranging from direct access to unconscious knowledge, unconscious cognition, inner sensing, inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition and the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.

Intuition From Wikipedia: Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without proof, evidence, or conscious reasoning, or without understanding how the knowledge was acquired. Different writers give the word "intuition" a great variety of different meanings, ranging from direct access to unconscious knowledge, unconscious cognition, inner sensing, inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition and the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.

Intuition This is all fine, but it is not in and of itself reflective of a scientific way of acquiring knowledge. Sometimes it makes sense to base one s actions upon information other than what one feels to be true. whether a virus is dangerous or not, etc. e.g., government policies on climate change, immigration reform,

Argument from Authority From Wikipedia: An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert. Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority. ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.

Argument from Authority Some examples: Hitler and the Aryan race ideal Solomon Asch experiments (Conformity) There were 8 confederates and 1 subject in the study. Everyone was presented with a standard line (on left), and asked to judge which of the test lines (on right) matched the length of the standard line. Easy task, right? Well, the subject was always asked last, and on some occasions all of the confederates gave the same incorrect answer (for instance, they chose B instead of C. A substantial number of subjects went along with the confederates obviously wrong answer. They conformed to the arguments of the group. The moral of the story is that scientists demand more than just listening to what others say. They are a very skeptical bunch

Argument from Authority So, which inauguration has a larger crowd?

Rationalism From Wikipedia: In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive". In an old controversy, rationalism was opposed to empiricism, where the rationalists believed that reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, the rationalists argued that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists asserted that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. The rationalists had such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence were regarded as unnecessary to ascertain certain truths in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience".

Rationalism For example, Mind | Body problem 1596 1650 Cogito ergo sum I think therefore I am French Philosopher, Mathematician

Rationalism For example, Mind | Body problem 1596 1650 Cogito ergo sum I think therefore I am French Philosopher, Mathematician

Rationalism For example, He concluded that Mind & Body were separate This conclusion was deduced from Descartes logical approach. He started by doubting all that was uncertain. This led him to question the very existence of the physical world, since he realized that his knowledge about the world only came through his senses and sometimes his senses deceived him (e.g., illusions, dreams). This exemplifies the rationalists view that the way to the truth is through pure, logical unflawed reasoning. But with the loss of the physical world, he then realized that there was one thing he could not question and that was the fact that he was a thinking thing. He took this to mean that his mind is non-physical. Once again, important, but not in and of itself science! And, of course, one could question Descartes reasoning I think therefore I am Cogito ergo sum He then assumed that G-d would not be so evil so as to create a thinking thing in a vacuum. He then accepted the existence of the physical world but regarded it as separate from mind.

Personal Experience This refers to the tendency to base one s understanding upon what one experiences in their own life. The main problem is that this often gives rise to inaccuracies because people are subject to various observation biases. Confirmation Bias This is when we filter out information that is not consistent with our own basic beliefs. For example, Trump experienced a large crowd at his inauguration ceremony because from the podium (where his stood) he could only see large numbers of people. A more objective aerial photograph, however, showed that there were many people not in attendance. But Trump disregards this because of a bias to confirm his basic beliefs. Availability Heuristic This refers to the tendency to base a belief on the often very limited set of memories that one can recall of some pertinent event, i.e., what one has available to them. For example, what is the likelihood of dying from a shark attack or from a train crash? Or, suppose one witnesses a crime and is then asked to judge the crime rate in the city.

Personal Experience Availability Heuristic This refers to the tendency to base a belief on the often very limited set of memories that one can recall of some pertinent event, i.e., what one has available to them.

Scientific Approach Chief Aim: To uncover the causal fabric of the world. Main Assumptions: 1. Empirical Method 2. Determinism 3. Discoverability Principle Important Characteristics: 1. Objectivity 2. Empirical Questions Goals in Applying Scientific Method within Psychology: 1. Description 2. Prediction 3. Explanation 4. Application

Scientific Approach Chief Aim: To uncover the causal fabric of the world. There is a causal structure to the universe, and it is up to science to uncover it. Let s have a look at the structure of the physical world.

Scientific Approach Chief Aim: To uncover the causal fabric of the world. There is a causal structure to the universe, and it is up to science to uncover it. Let s have a look at the structure of the physical world.

Scientific Approach Chief Aim: To uncover the causal fabric of the world. There is a causal structure to the universe, and it is up to science to uncover it. Let s have a look at the structure of the physical world.

Scientific Approach Chief Aim: To uncover the causal fabric of the world. There is a causal structure to the universe, and it is up to science to uncover it. Let s have a look at the structure of the physical world.

Scientific Approach Chief Aim: To uncover the causal fabric of the world. There is a causal structure to the universe, and it is up to science to uncover it. Perhaps the same applies to the psychological universe.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Empirical Method The value of an idea is assessed by consulting nature. This means that scientists look for evidence to support or refute an idea they may have about nature. This does not mean that the idea is proven true once supportive evidence is found. However, if evidence refutes the idea, then this would justify searching for other ideas. Notice that this is quite different from the rationalist s approach. There, flawless reasoning is seen as the way to the truth. Here, the truth can be approached by more and more sophisticated ideas refined by observable evidence.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Empirical Method The value of an idea is assessed by consulting nature. What kind of evidence could Aristotle use to support his worldview, that the earth is fixed and at the center?

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Empirical Method The value of an idea is assessed by consulting nature. When the ball is thrown up from a point on the earth, where will it land? ? What kind of evidence could Aristotle use to support his worldview?

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Empirical Method The value of an idea is assessed by consulting nature. When the ball is thrown up from a point on the earth, where will it land? ? If the earth is in a fixed place, the ball should land where it was thrown. But if the earth rotates, should the ball land somewhere else .? What kind of evidence could Aristotle use to support his worldview? This is an example of a kind of experiment. Notice, though, that the supportive evidence does not prove the idea true. Still, its value is assessed against empirical data.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Determinism All events in the world have a prior cause, i.e., is determined by some prior event.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Determinism All events in the world have a prior cause, i.e., is determined by some prior event. Causes This idea applies to psychological events as well as physical ones.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Determinism All events in the world have a prior cause, i.e., is determined by some prior event. Causes

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Determinism All events in the world have a prior cause, i.e., is determined by some prior event. Causes But what happens to the concept of free will, and personal responsibility? Are we really free or are our actions determined by factors outside of us? Is freedom an illusion?

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Determinism All events in the world have a prior cause, i.e., is determined by some prior event. Causes But what happens to the concept of free will, and personal responsibility? Most psychologists will assume a deterministic stance because without it behavior would not be predictable.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle We can, in principle, uncover those causal factors that exist in the world.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle We can, in principle, uncover those causal factors that exist in the world. But How???

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle We can, in principle, uncover those causal factors that exist in the world. But How??? Answer: Look for Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle We can, in principle, uncover those causal factors that exist in the world. But How??? Answer: Look for Necessary and Sufficient Conditions Necessity Event A is required for Event B s occurrence Sufficiency Event B will inevitably occur given the presence of Event A. Causality When A is BOTH necessary and sufficient for B then A is the cause of B.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle Example: Is Event A the cause of Event B? 2 x 2 Contingency Table B No B Event A either occurs or it doesn t, and Event B either occurs or it doesn t. A No A You can gauge whether A is necessary and/or sufficient for B by considering how often these events happen within the cells of this matrix.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle Example: Does Vaping Nicotine (Event A) cause Lung Disease (Event B)? 2 x 2 Contingency Table Lung Disease No Lung Disease In this example, vaping results in lung disease 100 out of 100 times, but lung disease occurs as often as it doesn t when no vaping occurs. Vaping 100 0 50 50 No Vaping Given these results, would you say vaping is a cause of lung disease?

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle Example: Does Vaping Nicotine (Event A) cause Lung Disease (Event B)? 2 x 2 Contingency Table Lung Disease No Lung Disease In this example, vaping results in lung disease 100 out of 100 times, but lung disease occurs as often as it doesn t when no vaping occurs. Vaping 100 0 50 50 No Vaping We d say that vaping is sufficient, but not necessary for lung disease.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle Example: Does Vaping Nicotine (Event A) cause Lung Disease (Event B)? 2 x 2 Contingency Table Lung Disease No Lung Disease In this example, vaping results in lung disease half the times, but lung disease never occurs without vaping. Vaping 50 50 0 100 No Vaping Given these results, would you say vaping is a cause of lung disease?

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle Example: Does Vaping Nicotine (Event A) cause Lung Disease (Event B)? 2 x 2 Contingency Table Lung Disease No Lung Disease In this example, vaping results in lung disease half the times, but lung disease never occurs without vaping. Vaping 50 50 0 100 No Vaping We d say that vaping is necessary, but not sufficient for lung disease.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle Example: Does Vaping Nicotine (Event A) cause Lung Disease (Event B)? 2 x 2 Contingency Table Lung Disease No Lung Disease In this example, vaping results in lung disease all the time, and lung disease never occurs without vaping. Vaping 100 0 0 100 No Vaping Given these results, would you say vaping is a cause of lung disease?

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle Example: Does Vaping Nicotine (Event A) cause Lung Disease (Event B)? 2 x 2 Contingency Table Lung Disease No Lung Disease In this example, vaping results in lung disease all the time, and lung disease never occurs without vaping. Vaping 100 0 0 100 No Vaping Vaping is necessary AND sufficient for getting lung disease. It is, therefore, the cause of lung disease.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle Example: Does Vaping Nicotine (Event A) cause Lung Disease (Event B)? 2 x 2 Contingency Table Lung Disease No Lung Disease In this example, vaping results in lung disease more often than not, and lung disease occurs less often than not without vaping. Vaping 75 25 25 75 No Vaping Given these results, would you say vaping is a cause of lung disease?

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle Example: Does Vaping Nicotine (Event A) cause Lung Disease (Event B)? 2 x 2 Contingency Table Lung Disease No Lung Disease In this example, vaping results in lung disease more often than not, and lung disease occurs less often than not without vaping. Vaping 75 25 25 75 No Vaping Vaping is neither necessary nor sufficient for getting lung disease. However, the likelihood of lung disease is greater with vaping than without it. In this case there is a contingent relation (but not causal) worthy of additional study.

Scientific Approach Main Assumptions: Discoverability Principle These examples illustrate the concepts of necessity and sufficiency and their importance to discovering causality. In practice, scientists perform experiments that are designed to examine if some variable is critically important for the occurrence of some phenomenon (e.g., vaping (i.e., a variable) might cause lung disease (i.e., the phenomenon of interest)). By performing such experiments, as we ll see, scientists generally manipulate the world in an effort to see if the world responds in a predictable way. We try to determine if some variable is both necessary and sufficient for the occurrence of some event of interest (i.e., some phenomenon of interest).

Scientific Approach Important Characteristics: Objectivity A common language is used to describe events. The events to be described are measurable. Operational definitions events are described in terms of the instruments one uses to measure those events. e.g., anxiety might be measured by increased heart rate.

Scientific Approach Important Characteristics: Empirical Questions These are questions that are answerable by data collection. They are precise enough to explicitly state or imply operational terms (i.e., ways in which the question can be answered).

Scientific Approach Important Characteristics: Empirical Questions These are questions that are answerable by data collection. They are precise enough to explicitly state or imply operational terms (i.e., ways in which the question can be answered). Are woman morally superior to men? Are humans naturally good? Is God dead?

Scientific Approach Important Characteristics: Empirical Questions These are questions that are answerable by data collection. They are precise enough to explicitly state or imply operational terms (i.e., ways in which the question can be answered). Are woman morally superior to men? Not a very good empirical question. Are humans naturally good? Not a very good empirical question. Is God dead? Not a very good empirical question.

Scientific Approach Important Characteristics: Empirical Questions These are questions that are answerable by data collection. They are precise enough to explicitly state or imply operational terms (i.e., ways in which the question can be answered). Are woman more likely than men to return lost money? Much better empirical question. Do people act altruistically in the absence of overt rewards? Much better empirical question. Still can be refined Is there a relationship between religiosity and ethics? Can be greatly improved...

Scientific Approach Goals within Psychology: Description Stimulus determinants (necessary & sufficient conditions) Categories that describe the phenomenon of interest Prediction Can you anticipate when behavior is likely to occur? Explanation Have you identified the causal factors and incorporated these into a theory of behavior? Application Our knowledge can be applied to help solve real world problems.

Scientific Approach Goals within Psychology: e.g., Violent Crime Description Stimulus determinants (hand guns, drug use, exposure to viol) Categories (hate crime, $, political, emotional, psychopathic) Prediction For example: Physically abused children are at higher risk to become violent criminals themselves, especially when they are drug users and are exposed to guns. Explanation Theory of violence, perhaps expressed with various environmental, biological, and genetic mechanisms. Application Pass laws that protect kids from risk factors .