Evaluating Evidence

Front 1

Why do we fall prey to bad thinking?

Back 1

1.) Natural Tendencies

2.) Lack of critical thinking skills

Front 2

"Six Pack of Problems"

Back 2

1.) Stories to statistics

2.) Seek to confirm

3.) Ignore chance/ coincidence

4.) Misperception

5.) Oversimplification

6.) Faulty memory

Front 3

Factors that effect our perception

Back 3

1.) Expectations

2.) Desires

Front 4

Facilitated Communication

Back 4

Holding the hands of an autistic child over a keyboard and letting them type; producing coherent thoughts (pseudo)

Front 5

How was facilitated Communication debunked?

Back 5

Just by a few simple controlled experiments

Front 6

How many people hold a paranormal belief?

Back 6

About 73%

Front 7

Graphology

Back 7

The evaluation of a person based on their handwriting (pseudo)

Front 8

How does the media distort facts?

Back 8

By focusing on personal accounts

Front 9

What does Pseudoscience Refer to?

Back 9

Claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence

Front 10

Where does Pseudoscientific data come from?

Back 10

Low quality data, drawn mainly from anecdotal evidence

Front 11

Common features of pseudoscience

Back 11

1.) **** evidence

2.) Claim opposes well established evidence

Front 12

What is one of the best examples of pseudoscience?

Back 12

Parapsychology

Front 13

What is parapsyc?

Back 13

the study of extrasensory perception (pseudo)

Front 14

What do pseudo science beliefs usually meet?

Back 14

Emotional needs

Front 15

Characteristics of Pseudoscience

Back 15

1.) Preconceived notion

2.) Search for evidence to support belief

3.)Ignore opposing evidence

4.)disregard alternate explanation

5.)crazy belief

6.)accepts bad evidence

7.)anecdotal evidence

8.)Lack tightly controlled experiments

9.)little skepticism

Front 16

What do pseudo scientists have in common?

Back 16

A pre convinced notion of what to believe

Front 17

What do pseudo scientists focus on?

Back 17

Focus on only one possible explanation

Front 18

Harms of Pseudoscientific thinking

Back 18

1.)decline in critical thinking

2.)decreases ability to make well informed decisions

3.)diverts resources from good causes

4.)monetary losses

Front 19

Fact

Back 19

Any statement that you can try to confirm or disconfirm by looking at evidence of the senses

Front 20

What does something need to be tested?

Back 20

An operational definition

Front 21

Main distinction between statements of fact and other statements

Back 21

How you go about confirming them

Front 22

Factual statements without any evidence

Back 22

Unsupported assertions

Front 23

Where are unsupported assertions most commonly found?

Back 23

Tv ads, political speeches and magazines

Front 24

Appealing to Auto rite

Back 24

"This is true because the Ph.D said so"

Front 25

Appeal to Authority Vs Unsupported Assertion

Back 25

In an appeal to Authority, someone besides the author believes the statement

Front 26

What do statements need to be beleived?

Back 26

Evidence based on observation

Front 27

Abstractions

Back 27

Dealing with observation of ideas as opposed to events

Front 28

How to concrete an abstraction

Back 28

1.) Pointing out every instance

2.) Set rules for using it

Front 29

Requirements for Observations to have scientific value

Back 29

1.) Concrete abstractions

2.) Reliability

Front 30

Reliability

Back 30

Multiple researchers using abstractions the same way

Front 31

Inter Judge Reliability

Back 31

There is almost unanimous agreement on an abstraction/operational definition

Front 32

Test Retest Reliability

Back 32

Same question gets same responses

Front 33

Split-Half reliability

Back 33

When a test is split into two parts, the same results are gained

-A personality test is split into odd and even numbers, results are the same

Front 34

Validity

Back 34

Is what is seeking out to be measured in fact being measured?

Front 35

Evidence that does not have concrete abstractions and is not reliable

Back 35

Casual observation

Front 36

Evidence that does have concrete abstractions and is not reliable

Back 36

Scientific evidence

Front 37

Does volume of evidence make up for quality?

Back 37

No

Front 38

The problem with "It Could Be"

Back 38

Implies one belief is as good as another, leading to the idea that truth is subjective.

If truth is subjective, than no statement is worth calling a fact, and knowledge could not exist

Front 39

Necessary Truth

Back 39

An idea that has to be known as true to prove/disprove a fact

Front 40

Necessary Falsehood

Back 40

A Falsehood that must be known as false to prove/disprove a fact

Front 41

What is a skeptic?

Back 41

Someone who wants to evaluate the evidence of a claim

Front 42

Skeptic/Scientist Vs Others

Back 42

Skeptics require considerable, repeatable evidence

Front 43

Good Approach when we shape our beliefs

Back 43

1.) State the claim

2.) Examine evidence

3.) Consider alternate hypothesis

4.) Evaluate reasonableness of each hypothesis

Front 44

3 Most Important Questions of Assessing Reasonableness

Back 44

1.) Is it testable?

2.) Is it the simplest explanation?

3.) Does it conflict with well established knowledge?

Front 45

Choosing an Explanation

Back 45

Choose the simpler one with the fewest assumptions

Front 46

Occam's Razor

Back 46

The idea of choosing the simplest explanation

Front 47

One of the more common and effective ways to evaluate a claim

Back 47

Experimental method

Front 48

What happens in an experiment?

Back 48

One group receives a treatment, one does not

Front 49

Double Blind Study

Back 49

Neither the participants or the person distributing the treatment know which group is which

Front 50

What is science?

Back 50

The rigorous testing of a hypothesis

Front 51

Theory

Back 51

A conceptual structure that is supported by a large and varied set of data

Front 52

Fact

Back 52

A conclusion that has been confirmed to such an extent that it is reasonable to believe at the time

Front 53

Paradigm

Back 53

A well established theory

Front 54

How Science Progresses

Back 54

1.) Initial theory is made

2.) Empirical data is gathered

3.) If data supports theory, we can be more confident in theory

OR

Evidence does not support the theory and the theory must be modified

Front 55

Why is science like a projector?

Back 55

It starts off blurry with many contradicting studies, but eventually comes into focus with lots of supporting data

Front 56

How Science and pseudoscience differ

Back 56

1.) Amount and quality of evidence to be accepted

2.) Testability of a hypothesis

3.) Amount of skepticism and criticism

4.) Benefits it has provided to us

Front 57

Hypothesis in science v pseudoscience

Back 57

In science, hypothesis are developed to be testable

In pseudo, hypothesis are advanced even in the light of negative evidence

Front 58

Characteristics of Thinking Like a Scientist

Back 58

1.) Keep an open mind but be skeptical

2.) Make sure a claim can be tested

3.) Evaluate quality of evidence

4.) Try to falsify claim

5.) Consider alternate explanations

6.) Choose simplest explanation

7.) Choose the explanation that dosent contradict well established knowledge

8.) Proportion your belief to the amount of evidence for your belief

Front 59

Naturalistic Observation

Back 59

Method of gathering evidence based on a complete and accurate reading of natural events as they occur, with minimal interference with the events

Front 60

When is naturalistic Observation usually used?

Back 60

When a Scientist begins with a general question

Front 61

What does naturalistic Observation usually do?

Back 61

Provide evidence for a theory and raise questions that lead to further research

Front 62

Retrospective Case Study

Back 62

Answer a question by gathering evidence after the fact; may study a person or a social system

Front 63

Population

Back 63

Any group of people, things or events

Front 64

Sample

Back 64

Representive group of a population

Front 65

Correlational Study

Back 65

Measures 2 or more variables to assess a relationship without manipulating either variable

Front 66

Can conclusive statements be made from correlational studies?

Back 66

No

Front 67

What is an experiment?

Back 67

A study that manipulates a variable to assess an outcome

Front 68

Between Subjects Design/Comparison Group Design

Back 68

Manipulates a variable with 2 or more comparable groups that differ on an independent variable

Front 69

Within Subjects Design

Back 69

Variable is manipulated and compared to results from before manipulation (before and after)

Front 70

X

Back 70

X