In 2005 I had an idea to write a book about
scientific and rational thinking. I started writing the book that year, but
progress was slow. In 2006 and 2007 I wrote a few books on different subjects;
however I continued to work on the 2005 idea.
In 2010 I completed another book; this one was on exercise and nutrition
myths. Over the next few years I was occupied
with various projects, and my ideas about the book contents changed often. January 1, 2014, after changing the contents
many times, my idea- In Evidence We Trust-
came to fruition.
The majority of books sold have been to college
students (undergraduate & graduate).
Surprisingly, the book hasn't done as good as I thought it would with science
writers and others that perpetuate science to the public. Before publication of the book I thought
those promoting science to the general public would be my main audience. In accordance with reviews and feedback from
readers there are 2 major criticisms aimed at the book- it is redundant and too
complex.
Firstly, I would like to respond to the redundancy criticism. To reiterate, the book was written over a
period of 9 years, so overlap can be expected with contents regarding similar
topics. Some of the short articles presented in chapter one
and two have been published on various internet sites, and some of the same or
similar information may be discussed in different articles. In chapter three
some of the questions overlap. Many of those questions were questions asked by
students from courses on research methods and statistics. There are at least two key benefits that for
presenting similar information across different articles (in different
contexts): strengthening of memory connections, and each article can be read as
a stand-alone article. Elaborating on
the information and repeating consistently over time will assist in enhancing
memory (2 of foundations of memory). I
suspect some of this information will be new to readers, thus redundancy will
be beneficial to an even higher level.
Novel information is processed differently than routine
information. With the appropriate
strategies novel information moves from being cognitively difficult to much
easier (requires few cognitive resources and is retrieved with less effort) to
process, once it becomes learned (discussed in detail in my seminars - Strategies
To Maximize Learning and Exploring Memory). Stand-alone articles have the
benefit of allowing the reader to read that section only; no need to read
entire chapter if only interested in specific topic.
In addressing the second major criticism- complexity- it is
important to point out that science, rationality and statistics are difficult. A comprehensive understanding of science and
its applications requires general knowledge in the meta-sciences (philosophy of
science, history of science, sociology of science, psychology of science) research
methodology and statistics. In Evidence We Trust- is not a complete
guide to the meta-sciences (consists of phil. of science and psy of science
information- concise), but it is focused on research methodology and statistics. It is important to recognize different areas
of science use the same words differently, and they often use different types
of methodologies. The research methods and statistics discussed in the book may
not apply to some areas of science. This
topic is mentioned in the book. Is the
book too complex? The content in this book may be difficult for some to
comprehend. However, with some effort and patience the content is learnable for
most people. In the words of Albert Einstein “Things should be made as simple
as possible, but not any simpler.” Science, rationality and statistics can be
simplified to a degree, but relative to most other topics these topics are
difficult. This book is not written for
cognitive misers (the cognitively lazy).
This book is written for individuals that are interested in separating
knowledge and nonsense, and are willing to put forth at least a moderate level
of cognitive effort. If you sale science
(science writer, science educator, science based -often synonymous with
evidence based provider) you need to understand research methods and statistics. If
you are not willing to learn at least the basics you should stop selling
science.
Mervine, in a review of In
Evidence We Trust published in Skeptic
Briefs, points out that "Hale states, 'after learning the information
provided in this chapter [chapter 3], you should have the skills necessary to
read scientific reports.' I come from a
non-science background, and I do not feel confident that I could tackle a
scientific report after reading this chapter alone." A few others have pointed out that they agree
with Mervine on this point. A more
appropriate statement is, after learning the information provided in this chapter
and thoroughly reviewing the recommended sources (at end of chapter 3),
references and appendices, you should have the skills necessary to read
scientific reports.
Overall, the response to the
book has been positive. Almost all of
the conversations I have had, regarding he book, with students have been
good. A few students have said the book
helped with their school work and assisted them in distinguishing between
science and pseudo-science. In addition,
some top intellectuals have had some good things to say about the book.
“A great introduction to scientific
thinking, useful for the student and the general reader alike” …Keith E. Stanovich, Emeritus Professor,
University of Toronto, author of How To Think Straight About Psychology
“A useful, informative, and engaging
compendium of critical thinking tools. Should come in handy for novices
and experts alike. I recommend it!” …Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychology, Emory
University, Atlanta, Georgia, co-author of 50 Great Myths of Popular
Psychology.
"Jamie
Hale has written an engaging introduction to the importance of scientific and
critical thinking and how useful and needed it is in
everyday life. On top of that, he throws in a nice primer
on basic statistical topics and offers useful and insightful answers. This book
would be useful to any student of science and rationality as well as any person
interested in these topics."
...Gregory Feist, Ph,D., Associate Professor
of Psychology, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, author of The Psychology of Science and the Origins of
the Scientific Mind.
In the context of In Evidence
We Trust evidence is synonymous with scientific evidence. Testimonials,
anecdotes, they-says, wishful thinking and so on do not count for
evidence. If we consider these types of
claims and feelings as evidence then any discussion of evidence is
vacuous. Testimonials exist for almost
any claim you can imagine. That does not
mean that claims of this sort have no value.
However, experiences are confounded (confused by alternative
explanations). Experiences may be important
in some contexts, and they may serve as meaningful research questions. However, a meaningful question or a possible
future finding is not synonymous with evidence; although, in the future they
could become evidence.
Recommended Readings:
Review Article: In Evidence We Trust
Mervine, B. (2014).
Trusting Evidence. Skeptic Briefs, 24(2), p.7.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment