Psychology 305 3

Psychology 305:Applied Critical ThinkingClass #3 (Ch.1 part c)“Horoscopes, fortune cookies, and UFOs”: 

Psychology 305: Applied Critical Thinking Class #3 (Ch.1 part c) “Horoscopes, fortune cookies, and UFOs” Frank Bosco

Preview of Ch.2 (Memory): 

Preview of Ch.2 (Memory) Reading limitations: If you know the basics of memory, you can limit your reading If you find that the following sections are difficult to understand, then read the entire chapter. Required reading: Retention Retrieval Metamemory Biases in memory

UFOs, astrology, etc.: 

UFOs, astrology, etc. Lett (1990) handout (p.153) Reasons for the popularity of paranormal beliefs in the U.S. Irresponsibility of the mass media, who exploit the public taste for nonsense Irrationality of the American world-view (which supports such unsupportable claims as life after death and the efficacy of the polygraph) *Ineffectiveness of public education: fails to teach critical thinking skills

Lett’s (1990) six rules:: 

Lett’s (1990) six rules: Evaluate claims with this system: (6 rules of evidential reasoning) – simplified scientific reasoning “FiLCHeRS” Falsifiability Logic Comprehensiveness Honesty Replicability Sufficiency

On being “filch-proof”: 

On being “filch-proof” “Apply these six rules to the evidence offered for any claim…, and no one will ever be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief. You’ll be filch-proof.”

Filch: 

Filch Main Entry: filch Pronunciation: 'filch Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English : to appropriate furtively or casually <filch a cookie> synonym see STEAL

Video: 

Video South Park Disclaimer

F: Falsifiability: 

F: Falsifiability Rule of falsifiability: if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it… “…In which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it” “EVIDENCE DOES MATTER”

F: Falsifiability: 

F: Falsifiability “If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter… the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence” Given (only) Edwards’ claims, could we ever disprove his ability to communicate with the dead? “This does not mean the claim is true; instead, it means that the claim is meaningless” Every true claim is falsifiable

F: Falsifiability: 

F: Falsifiability Examples: “The life span of human beings is less than 200 years” This is a true claim, but falsifiable if someone were to live past 200. “Water freezes at 32 F” This is also a true claim, however, it could be falsified if someone were to demonstrate water freezing at 34 F. *These are generally accepted as scientific fact

F: Falsifiability: 

F: Falsifiability How to make a nonfalsifiable claim (and types) The undeclared claim So broad/vague that it lacks propositional content “Does the month of May mean anything to you?” (etc.) Unintelligible and meaningless “crystal therapists can use pieces of quartz to restore balance and harmony to a person’s spiritual energy” What, exactly, is “unbalanced spiritual energy?” How do we measure it? How can we ever really evaluate whether or not the treatment worked? Most “new age” treatments are based on undeclared claims Most any “evidence” could be interpreted as supporting the claim Horoscopes, fortune cookies

F: Falsifiability: 

F: Falsifiability How to make a nonfalsifiable claim (and types) * (continued) * The “Multiple out” (“HEADS I WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE”) Inexhaustible series of excuses “It doesn’t work that way…” Creationists: “the universe is no more than 10,000 years old” Yet, we have solid evidence that it must be billions of years old How do creationists respond? “god created the light already on the way from those distant stars at the moment of creation, 10,000 years ago” No conceivable piece of evidence could disprove this claim UFO proponents: response to lack of solid evidence: Government conspiracy withholding evidence Psychic healers: I can heal you if you have enough faith/belief in my “powers”

L: Logic: 

L: Logic Validity vs. “soundness” Valid = conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises Sound 1.) argument is valid 2.) all argument’s premises are true

L: Logic: 

L: Logic All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog Invalid (hence unsound)– why?

L: Logic: 

L: Logic All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog Invalid (hence unsound)– why? One cat named Xavier (with fleas) would be a counter-example

L: Logic: 

L: Logic All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog Invalid (hence unsound)– why? One cat named Xavier (with fleas) would be a counter-example All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas Valid, but unsound – why?

L: Logic: 

L: Logic All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog Invalid (hence unsound)– why? One cat named Xavier (with fleas) would be a counter-example All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas Valid, but unsound – why? Not ALL dogs have fleas

Chariots of the Gods?: 

Chariots of the Gods? An alien astronaut preserved in a pyramid Thousand-year-old spaceflight navigation charts Computer astronomy from Incan and Egyptian ruins A map of the land beneath the ice cap of Antarctica A giant spaceport discovered in the Andes

L: Logic: 

L: Logic Example: Erich Von Daniken Chariots of the Gods? Ancient astronauts? Atlantis World map made by 16th century Turkish admiral Piri Re’is is so “astoundingly accurate” that it could only have been made from satellite photographs INVALID: there ARE other techniques Premise is wrong: the map contains several gross inaccuracies!

L: Logic: 

L: Logic In fact, Writing in Piri Re'is own hand described how he had made the map from a collection of ancient maps, supplemented by charts that were drawn by Columbus himself.

C: Comprehensiveness: 

C: Comprehensiveness Consider ALL OF THE EVIDENCE!!! Jeane Dixon (psychic) Predicted: Bush’s 1988 election victory… But also predicted: Kennedy will lose 1960 election

C: Comprehensiveness: 

C: Comprehensiveness Consider ALL OF THE EVIDENCE!!! Jeane Dixon (psychic) Predicted: Bush’s 1988 election victory… But also predicted: Kennedy will lose 1960 election WWIII will begin in 1958

C: Comprehensiveness: 

C: Comprehensiveness Consider ALL OF THE EVIDENCE!!! Jeane Dixon (psychic) Predicted: Bush’s 1988 election victory… But also predicted: Kennedy will lose 1960 election WWIII will begin in 1958 Fidel Castro will die in 1969

H: Honesty: 

H: Honesty (corollary to comprehensiveness) If the weight of evidence contradicts the claim, ABANDON BELIEF IN THE CLAIM! Eric Dingwall (1985) quote, p.157

R: Replicability: 

R: Replicability Results must be replicable We’re not concerned with what happens by chance! The results of one experiment are NEVER adequate in and of itself.

S: Sufficiency: 

S: Sufficiency WRONG: “because my claims have not been disproved, they have therefore been proved” The fact that you cannot prove that Hitler is NOT currently living in Argentina DOES NOT mean that I have proved that he is.

Slide27: 

Title: Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens. Abstract: False memory creation was examined in people who reported having recovered memories of traumatic events that are unlikely to have occurred: abduction by space aliens. A variant of the Deese/Roediger-McDermott paradigm (J. Deese, 1959; H. L. Roediger III & K. B. McDermott, 1995) was used to examine false recall and false recognition in 3 groups: people reporting recovered memories of alien abduction, people who believe they were abducted by aliens but have no memories, and people who deny having been abducted by aliens. Those reporting recovered and repressed memories of alien abduction were more prone than control participants to exhibit false recall and recognition. The groups did not differ in correct recall or recognition. Hypnotic suggestibility, depressive symptoms, and schizotypic features were significant predictors of false recall and false recognition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

Slide28: 

Title: Popular horoscopes and the "Barnum effect.“ Abstract: Investigated (1) individual differences associated with horoscope reading habits, (2) the reliability and validity of daily and monthly horoscope forecasts and astrologically based personality descriptions, and (3) the effects of knowing the zodiac sign on the perception of the usefulness of horoscope forecasts and on the accuracy of astrologically based personality descriptions. 366 undergraduates were administered the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) and Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control Scale. Results indicate that females were more likely to read their horoscopes. Although locus of control was unrelated to horoscope reading habits, Neuroticism on the EPI was closely related. Daily and monthly forecasts were unreliable and invalid. Astrologically based personality descriptions had some reliability, and knowledge of zodiac sign affected ratings of horoscope usefulness and accuracy of astrologically based personality descriptions. (23 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

Slide29: 

Title: Why horoscopes are true: The effects of specificity on acceptance of astrological interpretations. Abstract: 63 female undergraduates were given an identical general horoscope interpretation but were assigned randomly to 1 of 3 specificity conditions in which they were told the interpretation was (a) generally true of people, (b) derived for them on the basis of the year and month of their birth, or (c) derived for them on the basis of the year, month, and day of their birth. Results show that the more specific birth time referent the S ascribed to the astrological interpretation, the more the interpretation was accepted as an accurate description of the S's personality (p < .0001). A discussion is made of how horoscopes may achieve "verification" or acceptance because of situation factors alone, rather than any actual relationship between astrological interpretations and an individual's observed personality. (22 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

End: 

End That’s all you get.