Thinking like a Psychological Scientist | Noba
We are bombarded every day with claims about how the world works, claims that have a direct impact on how we think about and solve problems in society and our personal lives. This module explores important considerations for evaluating the trustworthiness of such claims by contrasting between scientific thinking and everyday observations (also known as “anecdotal evidence”).
We are bombarded every day with claims about how the world works, claims that have a direct impact on how we think about and solve problems in society and our personal lives. This module explores important considerations for evaluating the trustworthiness of such claims by contrasting between scientific thinking and everyday observations (also known as “anecdotal evidence”). Facts Falsifiable Hypothesis Inductive reasoning Levels of analysis Null hypothesis significance testing Theory Type I error Type II error Values Learning Objectives Compare and contrast conclusions based on scientific and
related reading
- Cargo Cult Sciencecalteches.library.caltech.edu
- Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)plato.stanford.edu
- Minimal-trust investigationscold-takes.com
- Getting Eulered | Slate Star Codexslatestarcodex.com
- The Control Group Is Out Of Controlslatestarcodex.com
- No Safe Defense, Not Even Science — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Strong Inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than othersgwern.net
- Towards a Formal Scientific Epistemologymindthefuture.info
- The Beginning of Infinity, Part 1nav.al
- David Hume — Why we change our mind – Ralph Ammerralphammer.com
- Outside the Laboratory — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorkernewyorker.com