I agree with Rick Froman. Some writers have referred to this phenomenon as
"belief bias," viz., the tendency to accept results more readily if they square
with our a priori hypotheses. I would argue that we need to warn our students
against this all-too-natural bias (to which we're probably all prone to some
degree). I would also maintain that we need to help our students to understand
the difference between ontological and epistemic arguments, even if we don't
present the distinction in those terms (I do in my graduate, but not my
undergraduate, teaching). That is, it is logically justifiable to conclude
simultaneously that (a) "I am inclined to believe that the authors' (or
journalists' or whatever) conclusions about the state of nature are probably
correct given the previous literature" and (b) "Even so, the authors are not
justified in drawing their conclusions from their research design." This is
precisely the kind of logical parsing of arguments that I try to teach my
students, and I'm always delighted when I see that some of them acquire this
way of thinking.
To follow Rick's arguments, if someone conducts a lousy (very poorly
controlled) quasi-experimental study of cigarette smoking and cancer and
concludes that "Cigarette smoking causes cancer," there is a sharp difference
between saying "I suspect the authors are probably correct in their conclusion"
(an ontological conclusion, almost surely warranted) and saying "The authors
are justified in drawing this conclusion from their study per se" (an epistemic
conclusion, unwarranted in this case). Putting it less technically, scientists
can be right for the wrong reasons.
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Professor
Editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice
Department of Psychology, Room 473 Psychology and Interdisciplinary Sciences
(PAIS)
Emory University
36 Eagle Row
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
[email protected]
(404) 727-1125
Psychology Today Blog:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist
50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513111X.html
Scientific American Mind: Facts and Fictions in Mental Health Column:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/
The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and
his play,
his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his
recreation,
his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which is which.
He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does,
leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing.
To him - he is always doing both.
- Zen Buddhist text
(slightly modified)
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Froman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:15 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Early Spankings Make for Aggressive Toddlers, Study Shows -
Yahoo! News
I think critical thinking is evidenced most clearly when we look critically at
research that supports our own biases. It is easy to find flaws in research
that violates our cherished assumptions. We tend to be friendlier with research
that supports them. That is why I would think it is especially important to
model critical investigation of research findings that fit easily within our
worldview. Students who hold different opinions will not be persuaded when we
overlook methodological concerns of results that favor our views.
That doesn't preclude us from noting that support from various sources using
different methods leads us to draw certain conclusions. For example, there has
never been a study demonstrating through random assignment to groups that human
beings who smoke are more likely to develop lung cancer. This is based entirely
on epidemiological (correlational) studies of humans and cause-effect studies
of animal models and biological studies. These taken in combination allow for
the conclusion that smoking causes cancer in humans. People generally need to
make decisions based on research that is flawed to some extent in terms of
internal validity and extraneous variables. They should realize both the
strengths and limitations of that research. And, for some, the research will be
irrelevant. They will believe that, no matter the pragmatic outcome, spanking
is wrong or right for ethical reasons.
Rick
Dr. Rick Froman, Chair
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
Professor of Psychology
Box 3055
John Brown University
2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761
[email protected]
(479)524-7295
http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman
Forwarding any part of this e-mail to the White House is strictly prohibited.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joan Warmbold [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:02 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Early Spankings Make for Aggressive Toddlers, Study Shows -
Yahoo! News
Sorry but with the extensive research on the impact of modeling, I think
it's a little blithe to assume that this research on the impact of
spanking on a child's aggressiveness (that has been conducted for
literally decades) goes into the same category as the more egregious
examples we have discussed in the recent past. Hundreds of studies have
found a strong association between the use of physical punishment and the
level of aggression to be strong. And I also happen to find it appalling
that we are now willing to say parents spank because the child is more
difficult--who's the adult in this interaction?! And are African-American
children innately more difficult than other groups as their parents use
spanking significantly more than other ethnic groups? And lower class
parents use spanking significantly more than middle class parents so are
their children also innately more difficult?
The research on the impact of discipline on children has been conducted
for eons and this listserv is doing a disservice to this extensive and
ongoing research to be willing to casually put it into the "gee whiz,
chicken or the egg," category. I think the amount of time and consistency
of the research studies through meta-analysis that the use of physical
punishment precedes the aggression of the children. Gee, we use to blame
the parents for every thing. Now we seem ready and willing to blame the
child for the type of discipline their parents decide to use. Ludicrous
to the extreme.
Joan
[email protected]
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
