I think we definitely should revise our beliefs based on objective evidence, but it's hard to do and we often don't know when we're not being "objective" (or neutral). For example, I saw a few days ago that there is a new article in the Journal of Educational Psychology entitled, "Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning?". I took a quick look at the abstract and the results of the study appear to not (fully) support discovery learning. I'm a big fan of discovery learning. I haven't read the article and if not for this post I probably wouldn't ever have read it. I decided to download the article and read it (couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance I guess).
Or perhaps I'm a victim of the "Scientific Impotence Excuse" (Munro, G.D. (2010). The scientific impotence excuse: discounting belief-threatening scientific abstracts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 579-600. Michael Michael Britt [email protected] http://www.thepsychfiles.com Twitter: mbritt On Nov 24, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Jim Clark wrote: > Hi > > Yes! That is, we should "seek, acknowledge and interpret objective > evidence, even when it conflicts with our preconceptions or with what we > wish to be true." Are you thinking that we should NOT try to base and > revise our beliefs on objective evidence? > > Take care > Jim > > James M. Clark > Professor of Psychology > 204-786-9757 > 204-774-4134 Fax > [email protected] > >>>> Michael Britt <[email protected]> 24-Nov-10 10:03 AM >>>> > I recently interviewed Adele Faber, co-author of several parenting > books. As I edited the audio file for my podcast it occurred to me that > it will be clear to the listener that I agree with her ideas regarding > parenting (which are clearly more "Rogerian" than "Skinnerian"). But > aren't I supposed to be, as a psychology instructor "objective"? > > I've been turning this over in my head for the past few days and I > don't know if others find this issue of concern, but today I came across > an article in Time magazine by James Poniewozik. He's talking about the > supposed objectivity of journalists, but I think what he has to say is > relevant to us: > > "...what journalists and people who talk about them generally call > "objectivity" is not actual objectivity, but something more like > "neutrality" (often a false and labored one). Objectivity does not mean > having no opinion, taking no side or expressing no point of view. > [Objectivity] means seeking, acknowledging and interpreting objective > evidence, even when it conflicts with your preconceptions or with what > you wish to be true. You can have subjective beliefs*because we all > do*and yet subordinate them to objective evidence." > > Your thoughts on whether we should try to be "neutral"? > > Michael > > Poniewozik article: > http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz16DElMZfp > > > Michael Britt > [email protected] > http://www.thepsychfiles.com > Twitter: mbritt > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=6718 > > or send a blank email to > leave-6718-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958f69&n=T&l=tips&o=6719 > or send a blank email to > leave-6719-13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6722 or send a blank email to leave-6722-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
