This document provides an overview of scientific thinking and the scientific method. It discusses different ways of knowing, including through authority, logic, and empiricism. The key characteristics of science are that questions must be answerable, theories are tentative and open to revision, and theories can be falsified through experiments. The scientific method involves making observations, asking questions, developing hypotheses, and testing hypotheses through experiments. The document contrasts science with pseudoscience and provides examples to illustrate the differences.

1. Scientific Thinking
Brian J. Piper, Ph.D., M.S.

2. Objectives
• What is this course?
• Why take this course?
• Ways of knowing:
– Authority
– Logic
– Empiricism
• Characteristics of Science (versus pseudoscience)
– Answerable questions
– Tentative
– Falsification

3. Why a course on research methods?
• Required?
– Undergrad
– Graduate (Basic or Clinical)
• Foundation for later courses (process versus content)

4. Ways of Knowing: Authority

5. Ways of Knowing: Authority
• Claudius Ptolemy (90-168):
geocentric
• Galileo Galilei (1564-1642):
helocentric

6. Ways of Knowing: Logic

7. Ways of Knowing: Empiricism
• Empiric: Greek (empiric), Latin root
(experientia) of experience & experiment
• Knowledge comes from personal experience.

8. Scientific Characteristics: Tentative
• Science is never 100.0% certain.
• Evolution & punctuated equilibrium
• Medicine
– Mammograms: USPSTF: 40-49?
– Hormone Replacement Therapy: breast cancer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammograms

9. Scientific Method

10. Scientific Method
• Observation: my
nephew has problems
• Question: Why?
• Hypothesis: Smoking
during pregnancy, but
not quitting, has
negative outcomes
• Online study of non-
smokers, smokers,
quitters
Piper et al. (2011). Drug & Alcohol Dependence.

11. Scientific Characteristics: Falsification
• Freud:
– Id/Ego/Superego
– Repression
– Co-sleeping
• Evolutionary Psychology

12. Baloney Detection
• How reliable is the source of claim? $
• Do they make similar claims?
• Have the claims been independently replicated?
• Does this fit with how the world works?
• Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
• Where is the majority of evidence?
• Is the claimant playing by rules of science?
Michael Shermer (14 min):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU

13. Baloney Detection
• Is claimant providing positive evidence?
• Does new theory account for as many phenomenon
as the old theory?
• Are personal beliefs driving the claim?
Michael Shermer (14 min):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU

15. Science versus Pseudoscience:
Phrenology
• Popular Theory (Johann Spurzheim) that:
– Personality characteristics would result in
measurable bumps on skull (false)
– Localization of function (true)
• Tested by Pierre Flourens
– Lesion study (dogs/pigeons)
1776-1832 1794-1867

16. Science versus Pseudoscience:
Subliminal Messages
• James Vicary presented images for 1/3000th sec
of “eat popcorn” or “Drink Coke” on alternating
evenings to movie theater patrons (N = 45,699)
• He claimed in a press conference that Coke
(18.1%) and popcorn (57.7%) sales increased!
http://plaza.ufl.edu/cyllek/docs/KCrandall_Thesis2006.pdf

17. Science versus Pseudoscience:
Accupunture
• Chronic back pain patients completed a
double-blind study with 6 licensed
acupuncturists (4-19 years experience):
– Individualized
– Standardized
– Sham
– Usual Care

18. Science versus Pseudoscience:
Homeopathy
• Developed by German physician Samuel
Hahnemann
• Serial dilutions
• Safe (?) but not efficacious
1755-1843

19. Science versus Pseudoscience:
Crime Scene Profiling
• Crime scene is used to infer characteristics of
criminal
• Focus is on small # Hits, downplays misses
(like fortune tellers)
John Allen Williams
1960-2009 Malcolm Gladwell

20. Science versus Pseudoscience: Are cell
phones dangerous to your brain?

21. Figure 2. Brain Glucose Metabolic Images Showing Axial Planes at the Level of the
Orbitofrontal Cortex
Volkow, N. D. et al. JAMA 2011;305:808-813
Copyright restrictions may apply.

22. Contrast
Science Pseudoscience
Falsifiability Yes No
Burden of Proof Proponents Skeptics
Jargon Moderate High
Reliance on anecdote Low High
Connectivity with other knowledge High Low
Nestor & Schutt, 2012

23. “Pop” Science
• This may have elements of science, pseudo-science,
science-fiction, and popular culture
• Examples:
– Full moon and psychiatric admissions
– Left-brain (verbal/rational)/Right-brain (non-
verbal/intuitive)