Psychology & Science

I will get a 10.0

Logical positivism (LP)

• Science is about deriving facts from observations and experiments, forming generalizations, and testing them further to develop secure knowledge

• Theories and concepts should always be grounded in observable phenomena (operationalization)  

Logical positivism (LP) process

1. Observations: gathering empirical data to establish facts 

2. Generalization: deriving laws or theories from observed facts 

3. Predictions: formulating hypotheses from generalizations for testing

Ignaz Semmelweis

Discovered that handwashing by doctors dramatically reduced deaths from infections after childbirth, but his ideas were initially rejected because people did not yet understand germs

Factors influencing how much psychology can be trusted as a science

The replication crisis and scientific fraud 

Deductive reasoning

• Conclusions are based on premises (statements assumed to be true) 

• It is possible to have a valid deduction, but an untrue conclusion, or vice versa 

Sound argument

Both the premises are true, and the deduction is valid

Syllogism (major, minor and middle term)

• Major term (P): the conclusion comes from the predicate of one premise

• Minor term (S): comes from the subject of the other premise 

• Middle term (M): appears in both premises (links them) but not in the conclusion

Deductive Nomological (D-N) model

• The first premise: generalization/law, introducing the predicate of the explanation or prediction 

• The second premise: introduces the subject of the explanation or prediction, as the initial condition 

• The conclusion: serves as an explanation or prediction 

Propositions

Statements that are either true or false

Simple propositions

Cannot be decomposed into simpler statements but still claim something that is either true or untrue (eg. “it is freezing”) 

Composite propositions

Composed of other propositions using logical connectives (and, or, if…then) 

Truth-functional operators

Logical words (eg. and, or, not) that determine the truth of a statement based on the truth values of its parts (1=true, 0=false) 

Modus ponens

A logical argument form where if “A (antecedent) implies B (consequent)” and A is true, then B must also be true

Modus tollens

A logical argument form where if “A (antecedent) implies B (consequent)” is true and A is false, then B must also be false

Fallacy of affirming the consequent

An invalid argument where someone assumes that if “A implies B” and B is true, then A must be true (which is not necessarily correct)

Belief

Something we think is true 

Objective claim

Statement that is true or false, independent of anyone’s opinion

Subjective claim

Depends on personal options and cannot be objectively true or false    

Relativism

Idea that truth is relative to the standard of a given culture 

Moral subjectivism

Moral opinions are subjective judgements (dependent on individual beliefs) 

Argument

Presents a consideration for accepting a claim, with one part providing the reason (premise) and the other stating the position (conclusion)

Truth

Whether a belief of claim accurately corresponds to reality, regardless of individual opinions 

Knowledge

Believing in something with justification and without reason to doubt it

Belief bias

Tendency to evaluate reasoning by how believable the conclusion is

Confirmation bias

Tendency to give more weight to evidence that supports your viewpoint

Availability heuristic

Judging the likelihood of an event based on how easily it comes to mind

Generalizing from anecdote

Making broad conclusions based on a single vivid example

False consensus effect

Assuming others share your opinions more than they actually do

Bandwagon effect

Tendency to align your thinking with that of others

Negativity bias

Giving more importance to negative information than positive

Loss aversion

Being more motivated to avoid losses than to achieve gains

In-group bias

Viewing members of your own group more positively than others

Fundamental attribution error

Ignoring situational factors when judging others’ behavior

Overconfidence effect

Overestimating your abilities or knowledge

Better-than-average illusion

Believing you are better than average in different areas

Deductive arguments

If the premise is true, it provides/demonstrates its conclusion (“Must be true”)

2 kinds of deductive arguments

1. Categorical logic: the logic of arguments relates to sets or groups of ideas (categories)

2. Sentential logic: related to propositions which can be compounded from simpler propositions through logical operations (not, and, or, if…then)

Inductive arguments

The premise of a good inductive argument supports its conclusion (instead of demonstrating it) (“Probably true”)

4 kinds of inductive arguments

1. Generalizing from a sample: inferring population attributions based on attributes observed in a sample 

2. Statistical syllogism: conclusion specific members of a population possess an attribute because a high proportion of the sample does 

3. Argument from analogy: inferring something has an attribute because a similar thing has that attribute 

4. Causal arguments: supporting a claim that asserts or implies a cause-and-effect relationship

Generalizing from a sample

Inferring population attributions based on attributes observed in a sample

Statistical syllogism

Conclusion specific members of a population possess an attribute because a high proportion of the sample does

Argument from analogy

Inferring something has an attribute because a similar thing has that attribute

Causal arguments

Supporting a claim that asserts or implies a cause-and-effect relationship

Theory of persuasion (ethos, pathos, logos)

• Ethos: appeal to credibility or trustworthiness of the speaker or source

• Pathos: appeal to emotions to persuade the audience 

• Logos: appeal to logic, reason, and evidence

Verification (LP)

Confirms hypothesis, can’t guarantee truth, probable certainty

Popperian falsification

• For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be structured in a way that allows for its potential falsification through empirical testing

• Rejects hypothesis, can definitely show false, logical certainty in faliure

Corroboration

Mseasures the degree to which a theory has survived falsification tests

Conventionalist strategy

Scientific, mathematical, or moral frameworks are chosen for their utility, simplicity, or consistency—not because they represent an absolute, objective truth

The Quine-Duhem thesis

• Suggests the process of testing a scientific hypothesis is more complex than suggested by theories like logical positivism and Popperian falsification 

  • When a test fails to support a hypothesis, there are various interpretations of the outcome

Post-positivism

“Learn from it, revise it” 

Under-determinism

Suggests that empirical evidence may not fully confirm or refute a theory

Sophisticated falsificationism (Chalmers)

Scientific progress is driven by the confirmation of bold hypotheses and falsification of cautious one

Bold vs Cautious hypothesis

• Bold hypothesis: diverges significantly from prevailing views

• Cautious hypothesis: aligns with the existing background knowledge

Kuhn’s explorations

• Explored context of discovery; how scientific theories develop in real-world settings, and are influenced by societal factors

• Introduced “scientific resolutions”

Kuhn’s“scientific resolutions”

Describe periods of fundamental change in science analyzed by examples

Paradigm

Core ideas, beliefs, methodologies and practices that define a particular scientific discipline at a given time, which serve as a framework for scientific inquiry

Kuhn’s sequence of scientific development

1. Pre-science: many competing approaches 

2. Paradigm emerges: one framework becomes dominant 

3. Normal science: scientists solve puzzles within a paradigm 

4. Crisis & scientific revolution: the paradigm may eventually change

Normal science

Operates under the established paradigm and represents how scientists work or should work (theoretically and practically) 

Scientific crisis

Anomalies in science that challenge the foundations of the prevailing paradigm

Scientific revolution

emergence of a new scientific paradigm

Why is it pointless to compare the Aristotle-Ptolemy and Copernicus-Galileo paradigms?

Incommensurability (differing worldview, methodological approach, criteria for success, and justification for superiority over alternate paradigms)

Aristotle-Ptolemy worldview

Earth is at the center of the universe, with all celestial bodies, including the Sun, revolving around it in circular orbits; with 2 domains

Copericus-Galileo worldview

Unified domain with the Sun positioned at the center, while the Earth and other planets orbit around it  

Paul Feyerabend

Radicalized Kuhn’s views into a form of “methodological anarchism” (there is no universally applicable method for conducting science)

Paul Feyerabend “methodological anarchism.”

Rationality depends on the circumstances or time period in which it's applied (making it differ in application across contexts) 

What does Feyerabend's “anything goes” mean? (3)

1. Scientific progress often requires breaking existing methodological rules 

2. Creativity, cultural influences, and unconventional thinking can be essential for discovery 

3. No single method can govern all science at all times

Moderate relativism (Feyerabend)

1. Arguments from methodology cannot establish the superiority of science 

2. Every rule is violated at some point 

3. There is not universal “scientific method” 

4. Theories are fully incommensurable, suggesting a form of relativism where “anything goes”

Radical vs moderate relativism

• Radical relativism: 

  • Different theories cannot be objectively compared 

  • Scientific rules are constantly broken 

  • “Anything goes” 

• Moderate relativism (Feyerabend) 

  • Standards do exist, but they emerge with scientific traditions 

  • What counts as rational or true depends on the scientific context

Semmelweis

Had the idea of infection (from bacteria, etc) causing disease

Standard infection model (Pasteur and Koch)

Pathogens multiply inside the body and spread disease

Prusiner

Found diseases that challenged the Standard Infection Model, and proposed diseases were caused by a protein he called ‘prion’

Research program (RP)

Scientific method proposed by Lakatos to synthesize the views of Kuhn and Popper

What do Research programs (RP) consist of?

1. Hard core: contains the main assumptions of the research program (paradigm), which scientists don’t question and is resistant to change 

2. Protective belt/buffer: contains auxiliary hypotheses that can be modified when problems arise 

Types of Research program (RP)

• Progressive RP: generate new questions and ideas, solve existing scientific problems, and are guided by positive heuristic  

• Degenerating RP: only reacts after problems appear, no new insights or evidence, and unadaptable to challenges

Lakatos’ revised criterion of progressiveness

Predictions should be natural (arising organically from the RP/theory itself) instead of contrived (introduced after to explain new observations)

Allan Bloom

Suggested being too open to popular ideas without questioning them can make people ignore other viewpoints and stop real progress

Sources of obscurity

1. Excessive vagueness

2. Ambiguity

3. Overly general statement

4. Undefined terms

Excessive vagueness

When one cannot precisely determine what is included or excluded in a word or phrase 

Ambiguity

When a word, phrase, or sentence can be interpreted in more than one way

Types of ambiguity

1. Semantic ambiguity

2. Grouping ambiguity

3. Syntactic ambiguity

4. Ambiguous pronoun reference

Semantic ambiguity

When a claim contains a word or phrase that can be interpreted in multiple ways

Grouping ambiguity

When it's unclear whether a word refers to a group collectively or to individual members of a group

Syntactic ambiguity

When a statement can be interpreted in more than one way due to its structure or syntax 

Ambiguous pronoun reference

When it's unclear to whom or what a pronoun is supposed to refer

Overly general statement

Lacks general specificity and applies broadly to all members of a group

Lexical definitions

Dictionary definition

Precision or stipulative definitions

Making the term more precise for a specific situation

Persuasive or rhetorical definitions

Trying to influence an opinion or emotion

Ostensive definition (Definition by example)

Clarifying instances or examples of what the term refers to (illustrating the meaning of the term)

Definition by synonym

Providing an equivalent word or phrase that has the same meaning 

Analytical definition

Specifying characteristic or criteria that must be met for the term to be applicable (dictionary definition) 

Factors of a good definition:

1. Impartiality: doesn’t favour one side of the debate/argument over the other 

2. Clarity: clear and straightforward

3. Completeness: knowing when to focus on a specific aspect of the concept over clarity

Questioning a claim

1. Does the claim itself lack plausibility? 

2. Does the source of the claim lack credibility?

Credibility of a claim

Depends on its probability to be true based on our observations, memories, and background knowledge 

Credibility of a source

1. Be critical of interested parties

2. Do not base credibility on physical and other characteristics

3. Should be based on expertise

Kinds of Ads

• Logos ads: emphasize information about a product to favourably influence our decisions about buying a product 

• Ethos ads: rely on the endorsement or association of trusted individuals or reputable organizations to lend credibility to a product or service 

• Pathos Ads: appeal to consumers’ emotions, aiming to evoke feelings such as happiness, nostalgia, fear, or empathy

Rhetoric

The art of effective persuasion

Rhetorical force

Words with emotive meaning

Slanters

Single words or short phrases designed to give a statement a positive/negative slant (euphemisms and dysphemisms)