The Limitations of Personal Experience

1
The Limitations of Personal Experience

• As we discussed in the last class, the way people
  tend to gather information tends not to be very
  systematic
• we tend to seek information that is consistent
  with ones beliefs and ignore inconsistent
  information
• we tend to base our inferences on little
  information
• our expectations tend to influence what we see
• were not attentive to base rates and comparisons
• we tend to assume that propositions that feel
  wrong to us are invalid

2
Why are these limitations?

• In conjunction, these factors can lead to two
  problems for developing an accurate understanding
  of the world.
• First, these factors can lead us to the wrong
  answer.
• Second, the process itself is not self-correcting.

3
1. The Wrong Answer

• As we demonstrated in the Josh exercise, people
  who were seeking to answer different questions
  recalled different kinds of information about
  Josh.
• Although Josh was neither more extraverted than
  introverted (i.e., there were two pieces of data
  pertinent to each interpretation), people came to
  different conclusions about Josh based on the
  question they sought to answer.

4
2. Why the Process is not Self-correcting

• The confirmation bias helps to ensure that, once
  an expectation or theory has been developed, the
  belief will be self-perpetuating.

Is Josh extraverted?
We conclude that Josh is extraverted
We then recall extraverted-consistent information
better, and fail to notice introverted information
5

• So, what we want
• are methods that are more likely to lead us to
  the right answer
• a process for understanding the world that will
  enable us to correct the inevitable mistakes that
  we will make

6
The Scientific Method

• The scientific method is a way of dealing with
  these concerns.
• Science is the process of constructing, testing,
  and refining theories about natural phenomena
  though the use of systematic empirical
  observation.

7
Systematic

• By systematic, I mean that that all information
  counts, regardless of whether it is consistent or
  inconsistent with ones assumptions or how it
  makes us feel.
• Moreover, by systematic I mean attending to base
  rates, collecting a sufficient amount of
  information, recognizing and correcting for
  potential biases.
• In short, trying to be as true as possible to
  what really happens in the world.

8
How is the process self-correcting?
theory about how something works
generate predictions (what would the theory lead
you to observe?)
testing comparing the observations with the
theory
systematic empirical observations
9
How is the process self-correcting?
theory about how something works
generating predictions (what would the theory
lead you to observe?)
testing comparing the observations with the
theory
ensures that inconsistent observations will be
recorded
systematic empirical observations
10
How is the process self-correcting?
theory about how something works
generating predictions (what would the theory
lead you to observe?)
testing comparing the observations with the
theory
ensures that inconsistent observations will be
counted against the theory
systematic empirical observations
11
How is the process self-correcting?
theory about how something works
generating predictions (what would the theory
lead you to observe?)
testing comparing the observations with the
theory
theory is revised in light of the tests, and,
hopefully, becomes more accurate
systematic empirical observations
12
What is the scientific process all about?

• Let me say a few more words about the term
  theories.
• In this class, I will be using the term theory
  pretty loosely to refer to an explanation for a
  phenomenon a conceptual model of how something
  works.

13
Good and bad theories

• What is the difference between a good theory and
  a bad one? We all have theories for things, so
  what gives a theory scientific credibility?

14
How do we decide whether a theory is good?

• Historians of science have argued that good
  theories tend to have the following qualities
• (1) They are generative
• (2) They make precise (i.e., risky) predictions
• (3) They can be unambiguously tested
  (falsifiable)
• (4) They are simple (parsimonious)
• (5) They have Good Track Records (previous
  predictions have been tested and supported by
  systematic observation)

15
Cautions about science Process vs. subject
matter

• It is important to keep in mind that science is a
  process for understanding the world.
• It is not a topic or subject matter. Some people
  believe that chemistry, for example, is
  inherently scientific. However, one can study
  chemical phenomena in scientific ways or in
  non-scientific ways (as exemplified by some of
  the more esoteric branches of alchemy).

16
Cautions about science Pseudo-science

• Just because something is called a science
  doesnt mean that it is scientific.
• creation science
• astrological science
• What is astrology missing?

17
Cautions about science Pseudo-science

• In large part, scientific inquiry is accompanied
  by what might be called a scientific attitude
• an excitement about discovery
• a willingness to bend over backwards to prove
  oneself wrong
• a healthy mixture of skepticism and
  open-mindedness
• A good litmus test for whether someone is
  thinking scientifically What does the person do
  with information that is inconsistent with his or
  her expectations? (Binny Hinn)

18
Cautions about science Pseudo-science

• Some signs that the science may not be good
  science
• Failures are rationalized or explained way
• Reliance on anecdotes
• Lack of tests
• Lack of supporting evidence

19
Cautions about science Science as a Process
versus Science as an Ideal

• Obviously, people who are using the scientific
  method suffer from many of the problems weve
  described
• The scientific process is an ideal one that we
  strive to obtain, but do not necessarily achieve
• The onus is on you to be able to separate good
  science from pseudo-science. (In taking this
  course, I hope youll learn how to make these
  distinctions.)
• Well discuss pseudo-science on Monday.