Methods in Psychological Research. Annabel Ness Evans
Читать онлайн книгу.
It Is Logically Derived
Rational thought is thinking with reason. Rules of logic are applied so that reasonable conclusions are made. Logical reasoning is a more rigorous way of arriving at knowledge. However, logical reasoning requires confirmation from other evidence. A conclusion reached from logical deduction is only as good as the assumptions of the reasoning process. If the assumptions are flawed, the conclusion, although logical, is still flawed.
Consider the following:
All poodles are dogs. (Major premise)
Fido is a poodle. (Minor premise)
Therefore, Fido is a dog. (Conclusion)
The conclusion is logical and follows from the premises.
However, consider the following:
All poodles are afraid of hot air balloons.
Fido is a poodle.
Therefore, Fido is afraid of hot air balloons.
The conclusion is logically valid, but Fido, the dog of one of your authors, is afraid of just about everything except hot air balloons. The premise that all poodles are afraid of hot air balloons must be wrong, or the premise that Fido is a poodle must be wrong. Each premise must be demonstrated to be true in some way other than logical reasoning before the process of logical reasoning will work.
Empiricism: I Believe It Is True Because I Measured It
Empiricism is acquiring knowledge through our senses or with instruments that extend our senses. In research, we often think of instruments such as microscopes or telescopes, but in psychology, we refer to intelligence tests and surveys as instruments. The important point is that other people can verify such observations and measurements using their senses or their instruments. Directly observing an event and using a machine to measure something are both means of obtaining empirical evidence.
Of course, it would be foolish to always require direct sensory experience before we believe something. For example, just because we have never skied at Park City, Utah, does not mean that the ski resort does not exist. Empiricism must be combined with rational thought to make meaning of our world, and this is what science does.
FYI
Interestingly, as its first entry, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines empiricism as “a: a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory b: QUACKERY, CHARLATANRY.” This is not what we are referring to in our use of the word. Our use reflects the second entry: “the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences.” Curious how the word refers to both quackery and the natural sciences!
Science
Science is a way of acquiring knowledge through the continual interaction of empiricism and reasoning. Observation of real events provides the basis for hypotheses that can be tested in methodical and systematic ways. Hypotheses that are not supported by further empirical evidence are abandoned, and new hypotheses are constructed. In this way, general principles are identified, and predictions can be made. This is the basis of theory building. Hypotheses that have been tested and found to be supported by the available evidence are then encompassed in the body of knowledge of the discipline.
Science has been very successful in helping us understand ourselves and our universe, but it is not without limitations. Scientists don’t have all the answers. Science is always limited by empiricism. If we can’t devise a way to measure something, we can’t use science. Consider the following questions:
Is there a soul?
Is there an afterlife?
Is there a creator?
These questions may be very important, but because science relies on empiricism, we can’t investigate these topics until we have the appropriate measures to do so. Until then, we have only reason, so we leave these topics for philosophers and theologians to explore.
Conceptual Exercise 1A
Consider each of the following beliefs. By what process do you think it is likely the believer acquired the belief?
1 Too many cooks spoil the broth.
2 Boys will be boys.
3 Politicians are corrupt.
4 Capital punishment is immoral.
5 Pedophiles can rarely be rehabilitated.
Psychology—Science and Art
Psychology is both a science and an art. The psychologist as scientist might conduct research to determine how best to ask questions of people to encourage sincere dialogue. The psychologist as artist might use that information to help troubled teens in therapy. The science provides the theory; the art of psychology might involve applying that theory in skillful ways to help others.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the ability and willingness to assess claims and make objective judgments on the basis of well-supported evidence. Critical thinking skills can be applied to any topic or problem.
Critical thinkers do the following:
Ask questions
Objectively define problems
Examine the available evidence
Assess assumptions and biases
Avoid emotional reasoning
Separate facts from opinion
Avoid oversimplifying
Consider alternative explanations
Tolerate uncertainty
Maintain an air of skepticism but remain open-minded (i.e., not cynical)
Critical thinking is particularly relevant to psychology. Thought and thinking are important areas of study in psychology. Cognitive psychologists in particular study problem solving, concept formation, creativity, and other mental processes we would call thinking. Moreover, thinking is a topic that interests everybody. We all want to know more about thinking processes. Researchers in psychology generate many competing findings on topics that we find personally interesting or relevant. The general public’s fascination with popular psychology has created a huge market for pseudoscientists and quacks. As a result, students of psychology must be particularly prudent when it comes to evaluating claims and beliefs. And critical thinking skills help us do that.
Critical thinking skills help us recognize different types of evidence and the kinds of conclusions we can draw from each. For example, limited personal experience and anecdotal evidence are not reliable sources of knowledge. A pervasive habit of many people is to form beliefs on the basis of limited experience. We sometimes call this the n of one fallacy. An acquaintance of ours, who should know better, believes in ghosts. Why? Because his father claimed to have seen one. One anecdote was enough for our friend to hold a belief. Limited conclusions can be drawn from such anecdotal evidence.
FYI
Do not confuse skepticism with cynicism. Skepticism is a healthy reluctance to accept new information without sufficient