Book contents
- Critical Thinking in Psychology
- Critical Thinking in Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Chapter 1 An Introduction to Critical Thinking: Maybe It Will Change Your Life
- Chapter 2 Nobelists Gone Wild
- Chapter 3 Why Science Succeeds, and Sometimes Doesn’t
- Chapter 4 Critical Thinking and the Rejection of Unsubstantiated Claims
- Chapter 5 Promoting Critical Thinking by Teaching, or Taking, Psychology Courses
- Chapter 6 Avoiding and Overcoming Misinformation on the Internet
- Chapter 7 Critical Thinking Impacts Our Everyday Lives
- Chapter 8 Research Suffers When We All Agree
- Chapter 9 When All Is Just a Click Away
- Chapter 10 Critical Thinking
- Chapter 11 Evaluating Experimental Research
- Chapter 12 Critical Thinking as Scientific Reasoning
- Chapter 13 Critical Thinking in STEM Disciplines
- Chapter 14 Why Would Anyone Do or Believe Such a Thing?
- Chapter 15 Conclusion: How to Think Critically about Politics … and Anything Else!
- Index
- References
Chapter 3 - Why Science Succeeds, and Sometimes Doesn’t
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2019
Book contents
- Critical Thinking in Psychology
- Critical Thinking in Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Chapter 1 An Introduction to Critical Thinking: Maybe It Will Change Your Life
- Chapter 2 Nobelists Gone Wild
- Chapter 3 Why Science Succeeds, and Sometimes Doesn’t
- Chapter 4 Critical Thinking and the Rejection of Unsubstantiated Claims
- Chapter 5 Promoting Critical Thinking by Teaching, or Taking, Psychology Courses
- Chapter 6 Avoiding and Overcoming Misinformation on the Internet
- Chapter 7 Critical Thinking Impacts Our Everyday Lives
- Chapter 8 Research Suffers When We All Agree
- Chapter 9 When All Is Just a Click Away
- Chapter 10 Critical Thinking
- Chapter 11 Evaluating Experimental Research
- Chapter 12 Critical Thinking as Scientific Reasoning
- Chapter 13 Critical Thinking in STEM Disciplines
- Chapter 14 Why Would Anyone Do or Believe Such a Thing?
- Chapter 15 Conclusion: How to Think Critically about Politics … and Anything Else!
- Index
- References
Summary
Psychology is part of a larger problem of science today. Science is simultaneously under-appreciated and lacking in credibility. The latter exacerbates the former but does not fully explain it. The credibility problems take many forms, from unreplicable results to outright fraud. A partial solution to both problems is to step back and consider science as an application of actively open-minded thinking (AOT). AOT is a standard for good thinking (both critical and constructive), which is designed to avoid common deficiencies such as bias toward pet conclusions and overconfidence in conclusions reached so far. In AOT, search for evidence, alternatives and goals is fair, and confidence is based on what has been achieved so far. AOT is consistent with ideal scientific practice. Since AOT also provides a standard for evaluation of sources when people cannot think through everything on their own, the dependence of science on AOT ought to inspire trust in its conclusions (including their uncertainties). Yet, scientific practice can be improved in ways that make science conform more closely to the standards of AOT, such as thinking of itself as asking questions rather than testing predictions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Critical Thinking in Psychology , pp. 39 - 67Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244.Google Scholar
Baron, J. (1993). Why teach thinking? – An essay. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42, 191–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, J. (1998). Judgment misguided: Intuition and error in public decision making. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and deciding, 4th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baron, J. (2017). Philosophical impediments to citizens’ use of science. In Jamieson, K. H., Scheufele, D., & Kahan, D. (Eds.), Oxford handbook on the science of science communication (pp. 361–367). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baron, J. (2019). Actively open-minded thinking in politics. Cognition, 188, 8–18. DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.004Google Scholar
Baron, J., Beattie, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1988). Heuristics and biases in diagnostic reasoning: II. congruence, information, and certainty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 88–110.Google Scholar
Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 569–579.Google Scholar
Bazerman, M. H., Baron, J., & Shonk, K. (2001). You can’t enlarge the pie: The psychology of ineffective government. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. DOI:10.1177/1529100618772271Google Scholar
Christenfeld, N. J. S., Sloan, R. P., Carroll, D., Greenland, S. (2004). Risk factors, confounding, and the illusion of statistical control. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 868–875.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674.Google Scholar
Dhami, M. K., Mandel, D. R., Mellers, B. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Improving intelligence analysis with decision science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 106, 753–757.Google Scholar
Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C-L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012) Behavioral priming: It’s all in the mind, but whose mind? PLoS ONE 7(1): e29081. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0029081CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haber, N., Smith, E. R., Moscoe, E., Andrews, K., Audy, R., Bell, W., et al. (2018) Causal language and strength of inference in academic and media articles shared in social media (CLAIMS): A systematic review. PLoS ONE 13(5): e0196346. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0196346CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horton, R. (1967). African traditional thought and western science. Part 2. Africa, 37(2), 155–187. DOI:10.2307/1157195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2(8): e124. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016). Why most clinical research is not useful. PLoS Med, 13(6):e1002049. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049Google Scholar
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Koehler, D. J. (2016). Can journalistic “false balance” distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 24–38.Google Scholar
McKay, B., Bar-Natan, D., Bar-Hillel, M., & Kalai, G. (1999). Solving the Bible Code puzzle. Statistical Science, 14, 150–173.Google Scholar
Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer”: Evidence from a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 11, 512–534.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1963), Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology’s renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 511–534.Google Scholar
Northey, J. M., Cherbuin, N., Pumpa, K. L., Smee, D. J., & Rattray, B. (2018). Exercise interventions for cognitive function in adults older than 50: A systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(3), 154–160. DOI:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096587Google Scholar
Pashler, H., Harris, C., & Coburn, N. (2011). Elderly-related words prime slow walking. https://tinyurl.com/y4hqsz75Google Scholar
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119.Google Scholar
Planck, M. (1949). Scientific autobiography and other papers. Trans. F. Gaynor. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Roberts, S., & Pashler, H. (2000) How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107, 358–367.Google Scholar
Sala, G., Tatlidil, K. S., & Gobet, F. (2018). Video game training does not enhance cognitive ability: A comprehensive meta-analytic investigation. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 111–139.Google Scholar
Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008). With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1219–1222. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solomon, M. (1992). Scientific rationality and human reasoning. Philosophy of Science, 59, 439–455.Google Scholar
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.Google Scholar
Treiman, R. (2018). What research tells us about reading instruction. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 1–4. DOI:10.1177/1529100618772272Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by