Research Methods: Scientific Thinking

Brian J. Piper, Ph.D., M.S.

Scientific Thinking

Objectives

• What is this course?• Why take this course?• Ways of knowing:

– Authority– Logic– Empiricism

• Characteristics of Science (versus pseudoscience)– Answerable questions– Tentative– Falsification

Why a course on research methods?

• Required? – Undergrad– Graduate (Basic or Clinical)

• Foundation for later courses (process versus content)

Ways of Knowing: Authority

Ways of Knowing: Authority

• Claudius Ptolemy (90-168): geocentric

• Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): helocentric

Ways of Knowing: Logic

Ways of Knowing: Empiricism

• Empiric: Greek (empiric), Latin root (experientia) of experience & experiment

• Knowledge comes from personal experience.

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

Scientific Method

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.

Scientific Characteristics: Falsification

• Freud:– Id/Ego/Superego– Repression– Co-sleeping

• Evolutionary Psychology

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDUMichael Shermer (14 min):

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDUMichael Shermer (14 min):

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)

1794-18671776-1832

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

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

Science versus Pseudoscience: Homeopathy

• Developed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann

• Serial dilutions• Safe (?) but not efficacious

1755-1843

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)

Malcolm Gladwell

John Allen Williams

1960-2009

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

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.

ContrastScience 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

“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)