Week 2.
Basics of Scientific Method
Lecture notes
We
continue with basic assumptions of the scientific method, addressing the "hourglass" model
of the overall research flow. We will define each of these terms: these
will be central to the course (and the midterm!). These are all in Week
1 lecture notes.
Other key terms:
- Measurement versus experimental studies.
Understand the differences between descriptive or correlational research,
a "quasi-experiment",
and a "true" experiment.
- Internal versus external validity.
- Hypothetical constructs.
- Operational definitions.
Remember:
Lecture notes are given for the week they will be used. Print them and bring them to class to annotate during the lecture.
Attend lectures!: a lot of content is lecture only. Students who skip lectures reliably do a lot worse than students who attend! I will use lectures to describe what will be on your exams.
Readings
Chapter 2, plus click the food image for a New York Times article about Science, politics and your diet. Is a low fat diet really better, or just "politically correct"
Discussion group Assignment
Science and society
(Click for a Word copy of Week
2 assignment).
How much does science matter to you?
How do scientific discoveries influence the way you live? Are those influences always for the better? This week we have some more articles about science and social policy.
First, click here to read about whether science “matters”: what role does science plan in social policy, and what role should it play. This paper basically argues that science should matter a lot, but some parts of society may not value it enough.
- Do you buy that argument? Why / why not?
- What do you think inhibits full social acceptance (and use) of scientific findings or a scientific attitude (as we have been discussing in class)?
Second, the concept of legal responsibility is a moral construct, not a scientific one. Any religious or ethical system assumes people are responsible for their own decisions and behavior, which implies some measure of free will.
What if neuropsychology shows that some people commit crimes due to a “brain problem” – a tumor, or some chemical imbalance - that interferes with their "free" decision making. New functional MRIs allow scientists to actually watch the brain while it is working. This has led to a sub-discipline titled “Neurolaw”, addressing the legal implications of brain research.
- Should criminals with a brain abnormality be held responsible for their behavior?
- Could any crime be seen as due to a “brain problem”? After all, the brain "causes" any behavior, criminal or otherwise. Could “Neurolaw” undermine our basic sense of personal responsibility?
- Might Neurolaw be too great an intrusion of science into everyday morality, or is the ability to more clearly understand the neurological basis of criminal behavior an important advance?
Click the image for the “Neurolaw” article.
Click here for a proposal that Presidential candidates undergo brain scans to see if their brains are healthy enough to be president.
- Do you think candidates for president – or any other job – should have a brain scan to see if they are neurologically / psychologically “healthy” enough?
- Is this an area where science should be treading? Wny / why not?
