Extraordinary Beliefs: Exam 1

Over: Scientific Thinking, Cognitive Bias & Hiccups, Medical Pseudoscience, and Alien & Alien Abductions

Pseudoscience

a non-science that presents itself as a science or is mistaken for a science

Demarcation Problem

a philosophy of science question about how we distinguish between science and non-science

How do we tell a science for a non-science?

• testable

• falsifiable

• replicable

• systematic

• objective

• scientific method

Falsifiability

the ability of a theory or hypothesis to be logically contradicted by an empirical test; counterexamples/the opposite of the hypothesis must be logically possible and testable

Scientific Method

1. Observation/Question

2. Generate a hypothesis

3. Test the hypothesis and collect data

4. Analyze data and make conclusions

5. Start the process again

Critical Thinking

objective evaluation of a claim or belief and the evidence in support or against it to form a rational conclusion

Null Hypothesis

hypothesis stating the variables have NO relationship and any observed difference is just from random chance

Ex: Whether you like scary movie or not had no relation to whether you believe in ghosts

Alternative Hypothesis

our hypotheses stating that the variables have specific relationship

Ex: Scary movie lovers tend to believe in ghosts more than people who do not like scary movies

Statistical Significance

when results at least as extreme as the observed results would be very unlikely if the null hypothesis were true/if only do to random chance

if the results are statistically significant than we reject the null hypothesis; the alternative hypothesis gains support

Semmelweis’s problem? What did he observe?

one clinic had higher death rates than the other clinic

Semmelweis: what did he do to study the problem?

• Using different techniques?

• Climate difference?

• Overcrowding?

• Doctors vs Midwives in each clinic

• The doctors were not washing their hands, then gave birth so the mothers died

Semmelweis: what solutions did he try?

• develop handwashing techniques because doctors were not washing their hadns after using cadavers vs. midwives were not using cadavers

Semmelweis: what were the results?

• handwashing made clinic one of the doctors, mothers death rates go down

Semmelweis: what was the reaction to his findings?

• germ theory was not a thing yet

• people in their own clinic thought it was just pure luck

  • offensive to some people

  • thought he was insane, committed him to a mental hospital, guard beat him and he dead from an infection

Confirmation Bias

the tendency to notice and remember instances that support your beliefs more than instances that contradict them

Belief Perseverance

continuing to believe something despite clear and sufficient debunking

Debunking

exposing a belief, claim, or evidence as fake

Backfire Effect

trying to debunk a person’s belief may lead to that person strengthening their belief

Worldview Backfire Effect

when threatening someone’s worldview, debunking may backfire

Do these to debunk

• give corrections, but focus on how you can make them last longer

• make sure fact checks get to the right people

• use a debunking intermediary who shares traits/a group identify with the person/people you are working with

Don’t do these to debunk

• worry too much about backfire effects

• promote false claims nor soften the corrective information as an influential figure

• associate claims with major political or group identities

• minimize scientific consensus to “balance” perscpetives

Two types of reasoning:

• deductive

• inductive

Inductive Reasoning

• using specific observations to make generalizations that are probable

  • EX: Dog A is real, Dob B is real, Dog C is real, Dogs are real

• is the conclusion likely true based on the premises?

  • if yes, the argument is strong

  • if not, then argument is weak

• if the argument is strong, then are all the premises true?

  • if yes, then the argument is cogent

  • if no, then the argument is uncogent

The Problem of Induction

inductive reasoning is uncertain by nature

• based on current, known information

• relies on probability and likelihood

• susceptible to bias

• however, only possible approach in many cases

Deductive Reasoning

• making conclusions that by logical necessity and with certainty, follow the premise

  • EX: If it is real, then it is clearly observable, bigfoot is real, bigfoot is clearly observable

• is the conclusion logically and certainly true based on the premises?

  • if yes, the argument is valid

  • if not, then argument is invalid

• if the argument is valid, then are all the premises true?

  • if yes, then the argument is sound

  • if no, then the argument is unsound

Reasoning Diagram

Argument from ignorance

a claim must be true if it hasn’t been fully rejected as false (or a claim must be false if it hasn’t fully been proven as true)

• 97% believe climate change is true but it’s not 100% so it must not be true

Fallacy of a single cause

an outcome is due to one cause when it may be due to multiple causes working together

Golden Mean Fallacy

the truth is the middle option between two opposites

Cherry Picking

picking out the few belief-confirming cases and ignoring the mostly belief-contracting case

Argument from anecdote

anecdotes are used as the only evidence

Hasty Generalization

making a generalization based on insufficient evidence

Cognitive Biases

patterns of reasoning that don’t follow logical thought, but have reasons for their use

• EX: confirmation bias, backfire effect, logical fallacies, Semmelweis reflex

Semmelweis Reflec

rejecting new evidence or information because it contradicts current beliefs and norms

System 1

automatic, effortless, intuitive, belief-based, heuristics

System 2

takes time, effortful, analytic, logic-based, critical thinking

• worse performance with more cognitive load

Working Memory

information-processing speed and ability

Cognitive Load

strain/stress on our cognitive processes

The De Neys (2006) Study: Methods

participants were presented with deductive reasoning syllogisms and asked to determine validity

• syllogisms were either aligned or in conflict with reality

• cognitive load was manipulated by asking participants to remember a dot pattern while they did the syllogism task

• working memory was measured

The De Neys (2006) Study: Results

• supported the dual-process theory of cognition and reasoning

• worse performance with system 1 with more cognitive load

Cognitive Offloading

taking action to alter the information processing requirements of a task to reduce cogntive load

• can decrease memory

• can contribute to skill decay

Heuristics

information-processing shortcuts

Recognition Heuristic

if I recognize one thing, but no the other, the one I recognize is better/true

Familiarity Heuristic

if I recognize both things, but am more familiar with one, the one I am familiar with is better/true

Availability Heuristic

if I can more easily remember examples of something, then it must be more importnant or happen more often

Affect Heuristic

specific emotions will guide my reasoning

GI Joe Fallacy

believing that knowing a bias is enough to overcome it

Bias Blind Spot

viewing ourselves as less bias than others

False Consensus Effect

thinking more people agree with you than the number that actually do

von Restorff Effect

distinct, different things are remembered more

• EX: notifications

Extension Neglect

sample size is ignored when it should be considered

• base rate fallacy

Base Rate Fallacy

focusing on a specific case, while ignoring the general prevalence

• More covid-19 vaccinated people end up hospitalized BUT, more people are vaccinated

Availability Cascade

collective beliefs seem more possible/true if repeated

• urban legend

Urban Legend

Story/information, often funny or scary, shared as true

Truthiness

Viewing something as true based on intuition and not evidence

• cognitive fluency

Cognitive Fluency

ease of processing

• adding a photo to a false statement

Illusory Truth Effect

considering something as true after repeated exposure

Apophenia

tendency to perceive meaningful patterns and connection between unrelated things

• EX: slot machines

• pattern recognition

Pattern Recognition

matching current information to information/models in our memory

• EX: schizophrenia; happens more often

Illusory Correlation

perceiving a correlation/relationship between variables when there is no relationship

• EX: lucky charms

Pareidolia

perceiving a meaningful image in an ambiguous visual stimulus

• EX: looking at a car and seeing a face; maybe it looks sad but it’s just a car

The Case of Andrew and the Lawsuit

• Andrew was a researcher got approached by Richard a lawyer

• Andrews ultimate goal was profit

• Created an Anti-Vax movement saying vaccines cause developmental disorders

• Results could not be replicated

• Data was fake

• Lost his license now he is a “speaker” about antivax

Complementary & Alternative Medicine (CAM)

practices combined with or meant to replace scientific medicine practices, generally lacking the scientific method or using it poorly

• 88% of americans agree there are some good ways of treating illnesses medical science does not recognize

• 38% adults use CAM practices, 38% hospitals use CAM practices

Phrenology

study of the shape and size of parts of the skull to determine personality traits and cognitive abilities

Conversion Therapy

any attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to heteorsexual/cisgender norms

Mere-exposure effect

liking things more if they have been encountered more

• EX: chinese character: the more they saw one the more they like it even thought hey do not know what i means, they were just shown it more

Appeal to Authority

non-experts or perceived experts are used as evidence

• EX: celebrities are the most common

Conformity

aligning your beliefs and behaviors with others or a specific group

Conservatism Bias

not revising your beliefs enough when presented with new evidence

• more reserved

Moving the Goalposts

changing the amount/type of evidence needed to support a claim

Post Hoc Fallacy

when something appears to cause a later event because it occurred before the later event

• EX: Why am I feeling better? Must be the rose oil I used

Observer-Expectancy Effect

the researcher/observer’s expectations about a study bias the results

• blind procedures help

Subject-Expectancy Effect

the subject’s expectations about a study bias the results

Placebo Effect

experiencing a treatment effect when the treatment had no effect (is a placebo), but is expected to have an effect

Nocebo Effect

experiencing a treatment harm when the treatment has little to no chance of harm (is a nocebo), but is expected to be harmful

Quackery

fraudulent medical practices or recommendations

• EX: cocaine used to be used/shown a lot to “cure” things

Conflict of Interest

when personal commitments or goals affect other commitments or goals, especially those that impact others

Multilevel Marketing

a business model focused on product/service sales and salesperson recruitment

Pyramid Scheme

a business model focused soley on salesperson recruitment with other sales often as a front

Sunk Cost Fallacy

refusal to change a decision or course of action due to prior investment