Foundations of Research 1 Cranach, Tree of Knowledge [of Good and Evil] (1472). Public Domain, at Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna Austria Four sources of knowledge about the world This is a PowerPoint Show Click slide show to start it. Click through it by pressing any key. Focus & think about each point; do not just passively click. To print: Click File then Print. Under print what click handouts (6 slides per page). This is a PowerPoint Show Click slide show to start it. Click through it by pressing any key. Focus & think about each point; do not just passively click. To print: Click File then Print. Under print what click handouts (6 slides per page). Dr. David J. McKirnan, 2015 The University of Illinois Chicago Do not use or reproduce without permission Foundations of Research 2 Where does our knowledge come from? Section Overview We have been using different heuristics to think about how science works. We have seen that our entire approach is grounded in a value for critical, open and creative thought. We then develop content findings based on clear and objective methods. What do we mean by Content? What product does science produce ? What do we mean by Content? What product does science produce ? Foundations of Research 3 Where does our knowledge come from? Section Overview We have been using different heuristics to think about how science works. We have seen that science works by producing a set of interlocking knowledge sources ranging from concrete, specific facts, to more general, universal laws of nature. Foundations of Research 4 Where does our knowledge come from? Section Overview We have been using different heuristics to think about how science works. We have seen that science works by producing a set of interlocking knowledge sources ranging from concrete, specific facts, to more general, universal laws of nature. The center of this knowledge structure constitutes the guts of scientific research. Foundations of Research 5 Where does our knowledge come from? Section Overview We have been using different heuristics to think about how science works. The model of the actual research process we will use proceeds through: the identification of the larger study issue; theory and hypothesis development; and actual data collection. Foundations of Research 6 Where does our knowledge come from? Section Overview We have been using different heuristics to think about how science works. The model of the actual research process we will use proceeds through: the identification of the larger study issue; theory and hypothesis development; and actual data collection. Recognizing that irrational thought or bias can always derail or prevent an empirical approach Foundations of Research 7 Where does our knowledge come from? Section Overview We have been using different heuristics to think about how science works. Lets compliment this discussion with a review of where we get our knowledge from as individuals and in the process of scientific research. Foundations of Research 8 How do we know things? Authority / Tradition Intuitions Empiricism; direct experience Rationalism / theory How do we know things? Authority / Tradition Intuitions Empiricism; direct experience Rationalism / theory Section Overview (Of course there are many ways to think about what knowledge is; this is just one convenient system.) Foundations of Research 9 Sources of knowledge Authority: I believe what they tell me Credible / powerful people Institutions & traditions Culturally important texts: Bible, Quran Shutterstock.com Foundations of Research 10 Intuition: I believe my Gut feelings Emotionality or a hunch Emotional IQ (EIQ) Authority: I believe what they tell me Sources of knowledge, intuition Shutterstock.com Foundations of Research 11 Intuition: I believe my Gut feelings Empiricism: I believe what I can see Simple sensation or perception Direct observation; data Authority: I believe what they tell me Sources of knowledge, Empiricism Image: Shutterstock.com Foundations of Research 12 Intuition: I believe my Gut feelings Empiricism: I believe what I can see Authority: I believe what they tell me Sources of knowledge, Rationalism Rationalism : I believe what makes sense. Logical coherence Articulation with other ideas Shutterstock Foundations of Research 13 Intuition: Emotionality or a hunch Empiricism: Simple sensation or perception Direct observation; data Authority: Credible / powerful people Important social institutions Sources of knowledge, Science Rationalism : Logical coherence Articulation with other ideas These are the most central All these knowledge sources can contribute to science Foundations of Research 14 Authority-based belief What are some of the things you believe based on authorities? Who or what do you consider to be an authority on something? What are some of the things you believe based on authorities? Who or what do you consider to be an authority on something? Shutterstock.co m Foundations of Research 15 Authority-based belief Key distinction: Authority Beliefs derived from experience or accumulated knowledge : Authoritarianism Beliefs derived from strongly held (political, religious, personal) ideology : Source of authority is typically evidence-based. derived from a history of studies in a field. Authority in scientific or other field Amenable to new or conflicting evidence. Source of authority is typically person-based. Institutional position; Clergy, Imam, politician Sacred texts Ideological leaders Rarely amenable to new or conflicting evidence. Strong leaders can change authoritarian systems; c.f. Pope Francis. This crucial distinction often gets lost in discussions of how we know something. Foundations of Research 16 Authority-based belief Provides a stable core of principles; knowledge & beliefs People with extensive experience & knowledge have important insights. Can move a field beyond the data; visionaries, revolutionaries What are some advantages of authority based belief? Shutterstock.com Foundations of Research 17 Authority-based belief Disadvantages? Can be insensitive to proof or evidence Can be misused for financial / political ends Highly susceptible to political or commercial bias Can require evidence / science be corrupted, distorted or ignored. Can ignore or circumvent normal scientific procedures (e.g., Political requirements for Intelligent Design content in biology instruction). Click image for Sanford Medicine collection of Doctor smoking ads Foundations of Research 18 Authority-based belief Psychoanalysis is based on the writings of key authorities rather than actual psychological evidence, but contributed substantially to psychology. E X A M P L E Christian conversion therapies continue to try and turn gay men straight, despite evidence that they are destructive. Public Domain; Loyalbooks.com. Image:Click to rent ($2.99) at iTunes. Foundations of Research 19 2: Intuition, emotion, superstition When / how do we rely on intuition? What do you just know intuitively? When / how do we rely on intuition? What do you just know intuitively? Shutterstock.com Foundations of Research 20 Intuition, emotion, superstition Advantages ? Can provide emotional or personal insight Origin of novel hypotheses or theories Can move a field beyond the data Disadvantages ? Magical thinking: often explicitly non-empirical Emotion (e.g., fear) can outweigh rationality or evidence Foundations of Research 21 Intuition Intuition can be invaluable to science. Werner Heisenberg, a key developer of quantum theory, wrote that his musical training helped him appreciate scientific theory. E X A M P L E New age therapies and products flourish because they satisfy our emotional wishes, not necessarily by doing anything Posted in myconfinedspace.com, September 25th, 2008 by PaganPaul Shutterstock.com Foundations of Research Empiricism: Directly observing the natural world What empirical knowledge do you rely on? Think of some facts you know What empirical knowledge do you rely on? Think of some facts you know Shutterstock.com Foundations of Research 23 Empiricism or simple exposure Advantages? Grounds knowledge in real world. Confirm intuition by observation Makes knowledge public (e.g., Copernican revolution) Shutterstock.com Foundations of Research 24 Making science public Nicolaus Copernicus, 1473 1543, Renaissance mathematician and astronomer. First published a heliocentric rather than geocentric model of the universe. Derived his model from a combination of logic and empirical observations of the sky. Galileo Galilei, , Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher. Invented the telescope and used it to confirm Copernicus heliocentric model. Key participant in Renaissance Scientific Revolution; established the central role of unbiased observation as the basis for theory. Refuted the role of religious dogma in establishing truth. Was convicted of heresy, sentenced to lifetime house arrest, had his book burned. Seen as the Father of Modern Science for establishing the importance of empirical observation over dogma in several branches of science. Click for Bio: liveScience.com Click bio.: Max Planck Institute. Foundations of Research 25 Empiricism or simple exposure Advantages? Grounds knowledge in real world. Confirm intuition by observation Makes knowledge public Disadvantages / limitations? 1.Simple illusions / misperceptions / measurement error 2.Confirmatory bias 3.Oversensitive to emotional / perceptual salience 4.Spurious correlations 5.Anti-science use of nave empiricism Foundations of Research 26 Empirical data often cannot counter ideology Stereotypes of social groups African-Americans, Asians, gays have been overturned by direct experience and empirical data. E X A M P L E Shutterstock.com Although the jury is still out on the cops & doughnuts stereotype Foundations of Research 27 Empirical data often cannot counter ideology Stereotypes of social groups African-Americans, Asians, gays have been overturned by direct experience and empirical data. E X A M P L E It has taken years for abstinence-only sex education to recede, despite clear empirical evidence that it does not work. Click for article from SFGate.com Foundations of Research 28 Limitations to empiricism 1.Illusions 2.Confirmatory bias 3.Emotional salience 4.Spurious correlations 5.Nave empiricism Why is it difficult for us to use empirical evidence in our decision making? Our perceptions of the world can be simply mistaken Foundations of Research 29 Limits of empiricism: 1. Simple illusions Akiyoshi KITAOKA, Psychology, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan Foundations of Research 30 How many Fs do you see in this passage? FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE- SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF- IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS. A = 2 B = 3 C = 4 D = 5 E = 6 Foundations of Research 31 Limitations to empiricism: Confirmatory Bias 1.Illusions 2.Confirmatory bias 3.Emotional salience 4.Spurious correlations 5.Nave empiricism Why is it difficult for us to use empirical evidence in our decision making? Our perceptions are often biased by what we expect to see Foundations of Research 32 Limits of empiricism: 2. Confirmatory bias It can seem as though Cops are particularly fond of doughnuts. Is that really what we see? How much are our perceptions or memories due to what we expect to see? Shutterstock.com Foundations of Research 33 Limits of empiricism: 2. Confirmatory bias Cops and doughnuts Cop? = How memorable are each of these combinations? Doughnut? YesNo Yes No This is a subjective co- occurrence matrix. It illustrates what we think we see Shutterstock.com Foundations of Research 34 Limits of empiricism: 2. Confirmatory bias Cops and doughnuts Cop? = How memorable are each of these combinations Doughnut? YesNo Yes No Seeing someone who is not a cop, and not eating a doughnut, tells us nothing, of course. Seeing a non-cop who is eating a doughnut at least tells us that not only cops eat doughnuts. We do not register this as information at all. Seeing a non-cop who is eating a doughnut at least tells us that not only cops eat doughnuts. We do not register this as information at all. Seeing a cop not eating a doughnut particularly if we see this all the time should tell us a lot. Maybe cops and doughnuts are not really a thing but we typically will not register this as information. Seeing a cop not eating a doughnut particularly if we see this all the time should tell us a lot. Maybe cops and doughnuts are not really a thing but we typically will not register this as information. This cell is visually & cognitively salient. We recall this best and, since we ignore all the other cells, makes us think we have empirical evidence for the cops & doughnuts hypothesis. This cell is visually & cognitively salient. We recall this best and, since we ignore all the other cells, makes us think we have empirical evidence for the cops & doughnuts hypothesis. Foundations of Research 35 Limits of empiricism: 2. Confirmatory bias Cops and doughnuts Cop? = How memorable are each of these combinations Doughnut? YesNo Yes No We see (or remember) what we expect to see This is how stereotypes e.g., of different ethic, religious or other groups are maintained. We are over sensitive to confirmatory information. This is how stereotypes e.g., of different ethic, religious or other groups are maintained. We are over sensitive to confirmatory information. Shutterstock.com Foundations of Research 36 Limitations to empiricism; Emotional Salience 1.Illusions 2.Confirmatory bias 3.Emotional salience 4.Spurious correlations 5.Nave empiricism Why is it difficult for us to use empirical evidence in our decision making? Our memories of what we see can be biased by emotions or simple salience (we remember dramatic events better) Foundations of Research 37 Limits of empiricism: 3. Emotional Salience Observation is never neutral or objective Perceptually salient Address our emotional needs Salience effects: Which kills more women, breast cancer or cardiovascular disease? Fear arousal: Is the deficit a genuinely serious economic issue? Conspiracy theories: Could Kennedy have been killed by a single person? (law of effect) Fear based attitude change: Democracy is threatened by phony voters we need to make voting much more difficult Salience effects: Which kills more women, breast cancer or cardiovascular disease? Fear arousal: Is the deficit a genuinely serious economic issue? Conspiracy theories: Could Kennedy have been killed by a single person? (law of effect) Fear based attitude change: Democracy is threatened by phony voters we need to make voting much more difficult We pay attention to & remember stimuli that are: Click for anytimes.com article on misinterpreting coincidence: What are the odds of that? Coincidence in the Age of Conspiracy. Shutterstock.com Foundations of Research 38 Limitations to empiricism; Spurious correlations 1.Illusions 2.Confirmatory bias 3.Emotional salience 4.Spurious correlations 5.Nave empiricism Why is it difficult for us to use empirical evidence in our decision making? We can easily think one event caused the other just because they co-occur [see: Magical Thought] Foundations of Research Spurious (nave empirical) correlations: The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans. The French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans. The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans. The Italians drink lots of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans. Conclusion: Eat & drink what you like. It's speaking English that kills you. Foundations of Research 40 Spurious correlations I dreamed about meeting someone last night. This afternoon I met this really nice guy / gal on the elevator. A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one! B = I dont believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything. A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one! B = I dont believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything. Foundations of Research 41 Spurious correlations I dreamed about meeting someone last night. This afternoon I met this really nice guy / gal on the elevator. A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one! B = I dont believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything. A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one! B = I dont believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything. This item is clearly silly to most of us (I hope). Foundations of Research 42 Spurious correlations I dreamed about meeting someone last night. This afternoon I met this really nice guy / gal on the elevator. A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one! B = I dont believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything. A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one! B = I dont believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything. Here is a fallacy that often undermines rational thought: There actually are many coincidences (spurious correlations) Wishful thinking may lead us to falsely interpret them as cause and effect. Here is a fallacy that often undermines rational thought: There actually are many coincidences (spurious correlations) Wishful thinking may lead us to falsely interpret them as cause and effect. Foundations of Research 43 Spurious correlations I dreamed about meeting someone last night. This afternoon I met this really nice guy / gal on the elevator. A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one! B = I dont believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything. A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one! B = I dont believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything. Even if we are rational about our dreams, our experience of them may actually affect our behavior Whether the dream is true or not. Even if we are rational about our dreams, our experience of them may actually affect our behavior Whether the dream is true or not. Foundations of Research 44 Spurious correlations I dreamed about meeting someone last night. This afternoon I met this really nice guy / gal on the elevator. A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one! B = I dont believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything. A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one! B = I dont believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything. The rational perspective No coherent theory can explain how dreams might predict the future There is zero evidence to that effect. but C shows us how dreams may actually have something to do with your behavior. The rational perspective No coherent theory can explain how dreams might predict the future There is zero evidence to that effect. but C shows us how dreams may actually have something to do with your behavior. Foundations of Research 45 Limitations to empiricism 1.Illusions 2.Confirmatory bias 3.Emotional salience 4.Spurious correlations 5.Nave empiricism Why is it difficult for us to use empirical evidence in our decision making? Mindless or Nave Empiricism can reflect anti-scientific bias I wont believe it unless I can directly see it myself Mindless or Nave Empiricism can reflect anti-scientific bias I wont believe it unless I can directly see it myself Foundations of Research 46 Limits to empiricism: 5. Anti-science & nave empiricism The sun obviously goes around the earth; humans must be the center of the universe. We had a record cold winter; global warming must be a myth. The big bang makes no sense; we clearly are not moving in space. We cannot see things evolving The world just looks designed Evolution must be false Shutterstock Shutterstock. Foundations of Research Anti-science & nave empiricism Nave Empiricism Science asks how?, not simply what? Testing hypotheses and developing theories is more important than raw data Empirical observations must be put into a larger, theoretical context We cannot directly see even the most basic of scientific principles or processes (e.g., gravity). Foundations of Research 48 Rationalism: theory building What are some things you know rationally? What is a theory of yours that just makes sense? What are some things you know rationally? What is a theory of yours that just makes sense? and how do you know it is correct? Shutterstock Foundations of Research 49 Advantages / purpose? theories. Develop coherent principles or theories. Articulate hypothetical constructs* that underlie behavior. Make our conclusions correspond to other knowledge Disadvantages? Do we show bias in the data we use to support the theory? Are our theories influenced by ideological bias or authority-based belief systems? Rationalism *We will talk a lot about these later Foundations of Research 50 Rationalism Science has advanced via clear and strong theories, that.. Organize our understanding of a field Guide us toward new hypotheses and research questions Summarize empirical data E X A M P L E The theory of evolution Social cognitive theories in psychology Basic learning theory Shutterstock Click for an overview of Learning Theory from SimplyPsychology Shutterstock Foundations of Research 51 Theory; the vanishing mental illness Until 1974 homosexuality was considered a form of mental illness. Clinic studies: psychiatrists reported that homosexual therapy patients had psychological problems Since their sample consisted only of people in therapy, of course all their homosexual patients had problems all their heterosexual patients also had problems! A strong ideological bias toward viewing homosexuality as pathological blinded them to how wildly biased this empirical evidence was. E X A M P L E The rejection of homosexuality as mental illness was decided by a vote ; there were no empirical criteria A form of politics still affected this important issue. 70s / 80s: Independent Population studies and changing attitudes challenged this ideology. Unfortunately, theory can be prey to non- scientific political or cultural trends Foundations of Research 52 Bottom line: Ways of knowing and science Authority / authoritarianism Provides stable, core principles or beliefs Limits empirical evidence or alternative views Intuition / subjective hunch Important source of novel hypotheses / theories / scientific approaches Emotion-based wishful thinking or magical thought can make us irrational or ignore / distort empirical facts. Empiricism Grounds knowledge in real world, provides important hypothesis-testing perspective Our perceptions are subject to cognitive / emotional biases. Rationalism / theory Central purpose of science: coherent explanation of why or how nature works. Social or political pressure can limit hypothesis testing or lessen respect for empirical evidence. Foundations of Research 53 How do we Know something? Science: Integration of.. Rationalism Theory Hypothesis Empiricism Objective observation Control Operational definitions Replication Developing theories explanations of how or why behavior works is a core purpose of research. Empirical data helps us: describe the world test hypotheses & develop theory. Empirical data helps us: describe the world test hypotheses & develop theory. Foundations of Research 54 How do we know things, review 1 An important source of novel hypotheses, theories or scientific approaches A = Authority B = Intuition C = Empiricism D = Rationalism Foundations of Research 55 How do we know things, review 2 Grounds knowledge in real world, provides an important hypothesis-testing perspective A = Authority B = Intuition C = Empiricism D = Rationalism Foundations of Research 56 How do we know things, review 3 Provides stable, core principles or beliefs, but can limit empirical evidence or alternative views A = Authority B = Intuition C = Empiricism D = Rationalism Foundations of Research 57 How do we know things, review 4 Central purpose of science: coherent explanation of why or how nature works. A = Authority B = Intuition C = Empiricism D = Rationalism & theory Foundations of Research 58 Sources of knowledge Multiple cognitive & emotional biases impede empiricism: Illusions Confirmatory bias Emotional salience Spurious correlations Nave empiricism SUMMARY Stable beliefs. Biased / limiting? Authority Intuition Empiricism Rationalism Important source of ideas. Rational? Points us toward the Natural World. We strive to explain nature; why / how. Foundations of Research 59 Please go to the sources of knowledge quiz. Cranach, Tree of Knowledge [of Good and Evil] (1472)