Science and rationality are important in modern,
technologically advanced, industrial societies. Science is a large enterprise
consisting of multiple components. Science, although fallible, is the great
reality detector. Rationality, in this context, refers to rationality as it is
conceptualized in cognitive science. Rationality is concerned with judgment and
decision making. Rationality consists of two main categories- instrumental and
epistemic. Instrumental rationality reflects goal optimization, and epistemic
reflects evidence based beliefs. There is overlap between the two categories of
rationality. In my most recent book- In
Evidence We Trust: The need for science, rationality & statistics- I
provide information on various aspects of science, rationality and mathematical
procedures (statistics) used in describing and making inferences in the context
of scientific research.
In
Evidence We Trust
It is often
said we live in the information age, but we also live in the mis-information
age. How do we decide what constitutes
knowledge and what constitutes nonsense?
Maybe there are no wrong or right answers, and just opinions? This notion is fallacious. There are facts and opinions, right and wrong
answers. There is a reality that extends
beyond personal comforts and opinions (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010). In the context of science facts are tentative. They are assertions that are supported by the
preponderance of evidence. Facts in the
context of science (primary concern in this book) are based on levels of
certainty, but absolute certainty is never attained. Scientific findings are presented in terms of
probabilities and data (e.g. laws, principles, theories, etc.) is revised in
accordance to findings.
Testimonials, anecdotes,
they-says, wishful thinking and so on do not count for evidence. If
these types of claims and feelings are labeled 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.
Experiences are confounded (confused by alternative explanations).
Experiences may be very 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. Scientific evidence is drastically different than evidence as it
relates to everyday discourse. As Joy
Victoria points out- it should be obvious from the book's title that the type
of evidence I am referring to in the book is derived from scientific findings
(paraphrased).
The content in chapter one includes short-articles
(old, new & revised), a science discussion roundtable (featuring
individuals from various fields) and a nonsense
detection kit. Some of the short articles presented in chapter one have been
published on various internet sites, and some of the same or similar
information may be discussed in across different articles. There are at least two key benefits that can
occur when presenting similar information across different articles (in different contexts): strengthening of memory
connections, and each article can be read as a stand-alone article. In the science discussion roundtable
participants are asked two questions.
One) Do you have any tips for
people that are interested in enhancing their ability to read scientific
research? Two) What is the biggest (or at least one of the biggest misconceptions)
misconception about science? The Nonsense
Detection Kit is presented at the end of chapter one. The impetus for designing the Nonsense
Detection Kit was similar kits devised by Sagan, Shermer, and Lilienfeld.
Chapter two features short articles on rationality. Some of the same or similar information is
contained across different articles.
There are at least a couple of advantages to presenting information in
this manner (refer to previously mentioned advantages in chapter one). Many of the articles focus on the rationality intelligence
dichotomy. Also included in this chapter
are interviews with Keith Stanovich and the Stanovich Research Lab (Keith
Stanovich, Richard West and Maggie Toplak).
In the interview with Stanovich, he discusses the development of an RQ Test. In the
interview with the Stanovich lab, rationality and intelligence are
discussed. Since the publication of the book Stanovich, West and Toplak have
designed the first comprehensive test for rational thinking
Chapter three features frequently asked questions
about research methods and statistics. Many of the questions are questions I
have received in the past from my students.
Some of the questions address basic research and statistics problems,
while other questions are more complex.
At the end of the chapter recommended sources are provided for readers that
are interested in furthering their studies on research methods and
statistics.
The book ends with an appendices section. Practice
problems, and guidelines regarding APA citations and reference lists are given.
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.
This book is not written in the format often used by pop science
writers.
I would like to thank Joy Victoria, Kitty Mervine,
Jason Silvernail and Coert Visser for the review articles of IEWT they have
written.
In Evidence We Trust (Review) by Coert Visser
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment