How to write an empirical paper An overview

How to write an empirical paper?:

How to write an empirical paper? Or, how to build a principled and evidence-based argument?

A empirical research paper presents a principled and evidence-based argument.:

A empirical research paper presents a principled and evidence-based argument . An argument is the giving of reasons for a belief, or a proposition. It is not something essentially critical or contentious. The manner in which you give reasons should be principled in that it should follow the rational rules of inference. Evidence constitutes part of the reasons. 2. An argument is a social action (or part of a dialogue). There must be a reason for arguing (An argument should be well motivated . Or, why it is important to argue for the proposition?). There must be an audience. (Who is reading your argument?)

(1) Internal Structure of an Argument:

(1) Internal Structure of an Argument Empirical Propositions A set of conclusions (Theoretical Propositions) Evidence Valid Form of Inferences Theoretical Propositions

Are these valid Forms of Inference?:

Are these valid Forms of Inference? IF … THEN* IF p THEN q p q ( modus ponens ) 2. NOT with IF … THEN* IF p THEN q NOT q NOT p ( modus tollens )

How about this?:

How about this? IF p THEN q q p IF Socrates is a man, Socrates has a brain. Socrates has a brain. Socrates is a man. This is not a valid form of inference. Socrates may be a woman. So, having a brain doesn’t mean she is a man.

How about this?:

How about this? IF p THEN q NOT p NOT q IF Socrates is a man, Socrates has a brain. Socrates is not a man. Socrates does not have a brain. This is not a valid form of inference. Socrates may be a woman, and she could still have a brain.

How about these?:

How about these? IFF p THEN q q p IFF p THEN q NOT p NOT q These are both valid. IFF = IF and ONLY IF (or logical equivalence) Bidirectional Conditional

Argument from hypothesis:

Argument from hypothesis SUPPOSE that p IF p, THEN q1 IF q1, THEN q2 IF q2, THEN q3 …… IF qn, THEN qn+1 qn+1 p IF p, THEN qn+1 qn+1 p Is this a valid form of reasoning? This can be rewritten as… Is this a valid form of reasoning?

Evidence, and therefore Data Analysis, as Part of a Principled Argument in Psychology: MAGIC:

Evidence, and therefore Data Analysis, as Part of a Principled Argument in Psychology: MAGIC M agnitude Strength of support for p A rticulation Detail of support for p G enerality Breadth of support for p I nterestingness (external structure) C redibility (internal structure) Methodological soundness Theoretical coherence

External Structure of an Argument:

External Structure of an Argument How the argument interfaces with the research and general community. An argument must be directed to an audience, and must be motivated well enough, so that the audience will find it relevant. Relevance here has much to do with: What is new? What is added by the argument? In what way, does it go beyond what has already been “known” to the audience?

Typical Forms of External Structure:

Typical Forms of External Structure There is little knowledge about whether p, and it is worth finding out whether p because… A theory says p, but little is know whether p and it is worth finding out whether p because … A theory says p, but I don’t believe that p because… People believe that p, but I don’t believe that p because … There is an empirical finding that says p, but I don’t believe that p because … Some people (some theories, some findings) say p and others say q, but it is worth finding out whether p or q because…

Boroditsky & Ramscar (2002). :

Boroditsky & Ramscar (2002). External Structure To find how people think about abstract concepts (i.e., things they have never seen or touched) is important because much scientific progress and everyday reasoning about such important things as time, justice, and love depend on people’s thoughts about them.

Slide 13:

Internal Structure SUPPOSE people use that which can be experienced as an analogy to think about that which cannot be experienced. THEN they would use spatial experience as an analogy to think about time. THEN they would use their moving in space (e.g., moving in a queue, flying, and train riding) as an analogy to think about whether they are moving in time (e.g., “Next Wednesday’s meeting has been moved forward 2 days. What day is the meeting? – “Monday” implies the time is moving forward, whereas “Friday” implies you are moving forward) THEN people who moved forward in a queue would think that they moved forward in time. THEN people who moved forward in a queue are more likely to say the meeting was moved to Friday.

Slide 14:

IF people use that which can be experienced as an analogy to think about that which cannot be experienced, THEN people who moved forward in a queue are more likely to say the meeting was moved to Friday, AND THEN people who DID NOT move forward in a queue are less likely to say the meeting was moved to Friday.

Slide 15:

Empirical Proposition people who moved forward in a queue are more likely to say the meeting was moved to Friday than those who did not move forward in a queue. Evidence Moved most (top ¼ of a queue): 80+% Moved somewhat (second ¼ ): 70% Moved a little (third ¼ ): 60% Not Moved (fourth ¼ ): 37%

Slide 16:

Can we conclude the following? People use that which can be experienced as an analogy to think about that which cannot be experienced.