Foundations of
Research
1
Facts, Beliefs and the Irrational
This is a PowerPoint Show
 Click “slide show” to start it.
 Click through it by pressing any key.
 Focus & think about each point; do
not just passively click.
 To print:
 Click “File” then “Print…”.
 Under “print what” click “handouts
(6 slides per page)”.
© Dr. David J. McKirnan, 2014
The University of Illinois Chicago
McKirnanUIC@gmail.com
Do not use or reproduce without
permission
Cranach, Tree of Knowledge [of Good and Evil] (1472)
Foundations of
Research
2
Facts & Beliefs
We saw earlier that facts
– empirical observations –
are the keystone of the
scientific method …
and of critical thinking.
What is a “fact”, and how
does it differ from a belief
or opinion?
Laws
Theories
Hypotheses
Facts
3
Foundations of
Research
How do we differentiate ‘facts’ from ‘beliefs’?

We have a responsibility to intervene in Syria & Iraq.

Over 100,000 people have died in the Syrian conflict.

Each of us has an intrinsic purpose that we must
discover.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
Belief
or
Opinion
How
do
we
from
distinguish…
Empirical
Statement or
Fact
Foundations of
Research
Facts & beliefs

We have a responsibility to intervene in Syria & Iraq.

Over 120,000 people have died in the Syrian conflict.

Each of us has an intrinsic purpose that we must
discover.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
These are empirical statements, that could be tested.
4
Foundations of
Research
Facts & beliefs

We have a responsibility to intervene in Syria & Iraq.

Over 100,000 people have died in the Syrian conflict.

Each of us has an intrinsic purpose that we must
discover.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
These are beliefs or value statements, not amenable to
scientific study.
5
Foundations of
Research




Facts & beliefs
We have a responsibility to intervene in Syria & Iraq.
6
…and
We
have
radiological
established
Over 100,000 people have died in the Syrian conflict.
epidemiological
and
other methods
methods
to
establish
to test
this this
fact.
Each of us has an intrinsic purpose that we must discover. statement…
The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
How do we differentiate an assertion based on personal beliefs or
values, versus an empirical statement?
 Is it possible to collect evidence to address the question one
way or another?
• What would that evidence look like?
• What would a testable hypothesis be?
• Can this even be addressed empirically?
 What actual evidence is there?
Foundations of
Research




Facts & beliefs
We have a responsibility to intervene in Syria & Iraq.
7
These are inherently
Over 100,000 people have died in the Syrian conflict.
expressions of
personal values or
Each of us has an intrinsic purpose that we must discover. beliefs…
The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
No empirical
evidence could test
or refute them.
 We can, however, reframe a belief statement as a testable
hypothesis.
We have a responsibility to intervene in
 What if we take:
Syria & Iraq.
 And reframe it
as:
Our economy will improve if the Middle
East is socially and economically stable.
 This formulation is at least conceivably testable.
Foundations of
Research
Facts & beliefs

We have a responsibility to intervene in Syria & Iraq.

Over 100,000 people have died in the Syrian conflict.

Each of us has an intrinsic purpose that we must discover.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
8
 What empirical research could you do on this statement?

How does a belief in intrinsic purpose affect behavior or health?

Who in society holds this belief…

How closely is this belief tied to religious observance…
 So, even though an assertion of intrinsic purpose is not an
empirical statement…
… taking a creative approach
(here thinking about the implications of a belief)
allows us to develop interesting empirical questions.
9
Foundations of
Research
Here are some statements; think of whether you agree…
All ideas have some merit and should be
considered equally.
A = True
B = I’m not sure
C = False
 Most any idea is worthy of study.
Click image for a piece on belief and
irrationality from
http://www.nothingbychancecoachin
g.com
 Scientific acceptance of ideas is not egalitarian;
 Ideas that are coherent and have empirical
support are better.
Foundations of
Research
Knowledge attitudes, 2
10
If a lot of people believe something there is
probably something to that.
A = True
B = I’m not sure
C = False

Science is not democratic;
 Evidence “wins”, not the majority of believers
 History is full of foolish or dangerous ideas were accepted
by many people, including scientists, until countered by
empirical evidence.
 However, social consensus does provide grounds for writing
a strong hypothesis…
Foundations of
Research
Knowledge attitudes, 3
11
I can just sense when something is true or
false.
A = True
B = I’m not sure
C = False
 Intuition is an important source of hypotheses or
theories
 Intuition describes your emotions, not necessarily the
real world.
 Emotionality & subjectivity are not scientific until
they are empirically tested.
Foundations of
Research
Knowledge attitudes, 4
Everyone is biased, even scientists.
Why shouldn’t I just believe what makes
sense to me?
A = True
B = I’m not sure
C = False

Everyone does have biases

Science is designed to not be person based –

Science is about methods, not people and their bias’

Scientific method specifically works to lessen personal bias.
12
Foundations of
Research

Science: core values
Some ideas are “better” than others.
 Is it logically coherent?
 Is it supported by evidence?
 Does it make sense with what
is already known?
13
Foundations of
Research


14
Core values
Some ideas are “better” than others.
Science is based on methods and evidence, not
people.
 Objective methods are
specifically designed to
overcome our natural biases.
Foundations of
Research
15
Core values

Some ideas are “better” than others.

Science is based on methods and evidence, not people.

Evidence from the natural world trumps
personal biases or beliefs.
 Evidence from the “real world”
has the final say.
 Not OK to “Cherry pick”
confirmatory or self-serving
evidence.
Foundations of
Research
16
Core values

Some ideas are “better” than others.

Science is based on methods and evidence, not people.

Evidence from the natural world trumps personal biases or
beliefs.

Logic or rational thought are (generally) more
important than intuition or emotions.
 Is it logically coherent?
 Is it supported by evidence?
 Does it make sense with what
is already known?
Foundations of
Research
17
The values of science & empiricism
 Distinguishing fact from belief or opinion is key to….
Laws
 Critical or empirical thought generally;
 The basic building blocks of science
SUMMARY
 How do you know?
Theories
Hypotheses
 Is it possible to empirically test (or refute) your belief?
Facts
 What would that test look like?
 Facts are not social – just shared opinions – but
empirical, grounded in the observable world.
 We can test the implications or consequences of a belief…
 Some ideas are simply better than others.
 Science is anchored on evidence and objective methods, not
individual people or ideologies.
Foundations of
Research
Facts, Beliefs and the Irrational
Science, anti-science,
and magical thought.
Why is it so difficult to
“stick to the facts”?
18
Foundations of
Research
19
Why is it so difficult to take a scientific view?
Let’s talk about your beliefs.
How much to you believe in…
Foundations of
Research

20
How much to you believe in…
ESP or Extrasensory Perception
A = I believe in this
B = I am not sure
C = I do not believe in this
Shutterstock
Foundations of
Research

21
Beliefs, 2…
That houses can be haunted
A = I believe in this
B = I am not sure
C = I do not believe in this
Shutterstock
Foundations of
Research

22
Beliefs, 3…
Have you ever been protected
by an angel?
A = Yes
B = I am not sure
C = No
Shutterstock
Foundations of
Research
23
Are we rational?
Is American society “rational”?
Are our beliefs generally scientific?

Irrational beliefs have actually increased in the
U.S. in the 21st Century
For a great science
and religion myth
debunking blog go to
Rosa Rubicondior
Shutterstock
Foundations of
Research
Are we rational?

According to Google, there are around 200,000 searches
each month for the Loch Ness Monster.

These data are from an ongoing Google survey:
24
Foundations of
Research
25
Direct paranormal experiences among Americans
55% of Americans :
"I was protected from harm by a
guardian angel.“

Thus, over half
of us
not simply
Paranormal
beliefs
aredo
fairly
believe inin
angels,
but that we have
common
the U.S.:
been directly affected by an angel…
Paranormal Experiences in the United States
Percent that report the following experiences:
Used acupuncture or other forms of alternative medicine
28%
Consulted a horoscope
28%
Consulted a medium, fortune teller or psychic
13%
Had a dream that later came true
43%
Witnessed a UFO
17%
Baylor University nationally representative survey of 1,721 respondents
Foundations of
Research
Beliefs…
About 50% of Americans believe in
ESP or spiritual healing
Despite consistent failures to demonstrate it
scientifically.
Click the image for a discussion of ESP research from
PsychCentral.com.
Click here for an NYT discussion of a study that ostensibly
found ESP to exist in college students.
26
Foundations of
Research
Beliefs, 2…
27
37% of Americans believe in
haunted houses;
16% are ‘not sure’.
% of people who
believe in or not
sure about haunted
houses
% of people who
accept that climate
change is
influenced by
human activity.
All data from Gallup.com
Foundations of
Research
Beliefs, 2…
28
Beliefs that cannot be empirically
tested or supported
– such as hauntings –
can be accepted by more people than
are scientific findings that affect us all.
% of people who
believe in or not
sure about haunted
houses
% of people who
accept that climate
change is
influenced by
human activity.
All data from Gallup.com
Foundations of
Research

Scientific views on evolution are slowly increasing
29
Few Americans endorse a scientific view of the origins
of species:

Biblical creation views are most common;

A direct scientific perspective is uncommon.
Most Americans who accept evolution endorse
“Intelligent Design”. Not natural selection.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
Foundations of
Research

Ideology and acceptance of science
Acceptance of evolution varies substantially by
religion
More conservative faith
communities are more
likely to reject evolution
in favor of a biblical
perspective.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/
30
Foundations of
Research

Ideology and acceptance of science
Acceptance of evolution varies substantially by
religion and political affiliation.
Republicans’ rejection of
evolution has actually
increased over time…
Evolution has been lifted from
the realm of facts and theories
to become a cultural “wedge
issue”.
Here belief is less about
evidence than personal
ideology.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/
31
Foundations of
Research
Ideology and acceptance of science

Rejection of a basic scientific
principle such as evolution is
often not due to critical
thought about the science
itself…

…butrejection
becauseofthe
concept
The
science
often works
becomes
intertwined
with other
this
way, whether
it be…
core
values, such as
religious
…anti-government
ideology
doctrine.
…conspiratorial belief systems

…or other core values.


32
Foundations of
Research

Ideology & science: the MMR vaccine conspiracy theory.
33
Liberals also have “hallmark” unscientific beliefs;

A single fraudulent study in the 1990s led to the belief that the MMR vaccine
causes autism.

The science disputing this belief is as strong as that supporting evolution.

Even now 48% of parents accept / are unsure about the vaccine  autism link.
Celebrities Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey at an anti-vaccination
rally. Image: katiephd.com; click for a brief history of vaccines.
Harris Interactive/HealthDay , 2011
Foundations of
Research

Ideology & science: the MMR vaccine conspiracy theory.
34
Liberals also have “hallmark” unscientific beliefs;

A single fraudulent study in the 1990s led to the belief that the MMR vaccine
causes autism.

The science disputing this belief is as strong as that supporting evolution.

Even now 48% of parents accept / are unsure about the vaccine  autism link.

Vaccine beliefs are spearheaded by liberal bloggers, celebrities, and
alternative medicine groups (many of which profit from the “controversy”).
Click here for a discussion of how media manipulation and simple fraud underlie the vaccine - autism “controversy”.
Click here for a historical review of anti-vaccine movements.
Foundations of
Research
John Steward / Samantha Bee: An outbreak of liberal idiocy
Click for a
funny / scary
piece on
irrational
belief.
Everett Collection/Shutterstock
 A recent study reported in Mother Jones found four different
attempts to change anti-vaccine beliefs all failed
•
Emotion-based attempts did nothing
•
Fact-based attempts actually backfired, and increased antivaccine beliefs.
 Highly ideologically based beliefs can be almost completely
resistant to contrary scientific evidence
Mother Jones article here.
35
Foundations of
Research

36
Anti-science and cultural ideology; Vaccines
Liberals also have “hallmark” unscientific beliefs;

A single fraudulent study in the 1990s led to the belief that the MMR vaccine
causes autism.

The science disputing this belief is as strong as that supporting evolution.

Still, even now only 48% of parents reject the vaccine  autism link.

Vaccine beliefs are spearheaded by liberal bloggers, celebrities, or alternative
medicine groups.

Vaccination rates have decreased
due to the vaccine “controversy”.
98%
vaccination
rate
86%
vaccination
rate
Harris Interactive/HealthDay , 2011
Foundations of
Research
37
Anti-science and cultural ideology; Vaccines

Measles and Pertussis
rates – and deaths – have
skyrocketed due to
vaccination rates going
below the critical value of
95% for herd immunity.
98% vaccination rate
86% vaccination
rate
Interactive/HealthDay
, 2011
DataHarris
from Harris
Interactive/Healthday,
2011
Foundations of
Research

Anti-science and cultural ideology; Vaccines
38
Non-scientific thought
– that is, not based on clear thought or empirical evidence –
is relatively common…

And can have serious consequences.
Foundations of
Research

Anti-science and cultural ideology; Vaccines
Non-scientific thought
 As with evolution, rejection of the science underlying
vaccine safety is tied in with a larger value system;
 living a “green” life
 Mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry.
39
Foundations of
Research

Why do we reject scientific explanations?
40
When they conflict with intuition or popular opinion.

Scientific explanations are often abstract & difficult; intuition
is easier and “feels better”.

Strong conformity pressure for popular opinion;
o
We belong to a group by sharing its values and beliefs.
 It can be difficult to challenge a shared core value.
o
o
Social groups can induce a “false consensus”;

If most of our friends believe something we can not only be
swayed…

…but assume the belief is widely shared.
We may actually join social groups due to a shared, nonrational belief, e.g., UFO societies.
Foundations of
Research


Why do we reject scientific explanations?
41
When they conflict with intuition or popular opinion.

Scientific explanations are often abstract & difficult; intuition is easier and
“feels better”.

Strong conformity pressure for popular opinion;
Misunderstanding of chance & coincidence;

Spurious correlations

Both gun regulations & crime have decreased since 1980.

Does that mean that more guns = lower crime?

Areas with more guns actually have more crime.

Nationally crime has lessened due to the end of the crack
epidemic, higher incarceration rates, and community policing.

The ‘correlation’ between lessening regulations and crime
reduction is spurious, but…

Requires we take a closer, skeptical look at the evidence

Reflects the core values of some social groups
Foundations of
Research


Spurious correlation.
42
When they conflict with intuition or popular opinion.

Scientific explanations often abstract & difficult; intuition is
easier and “feels better”

Strong conformity pressure of popular opinion
Misunderstanding of chance & coincidence;

Spurious correlations

When we see a correlation, it is easy for us to misinterpret the
actual cause.
 Things
appear
to be
correlated
even
in nonsense
The scientist
yellscan
“JUMP!”
at the
frog
and the frog
jumps
one meter.data
Then he cuts off one of the frog’s legs, yells “JUMP!” and the frog jumps half a
meter.
Then he cuts off another of the frog’s legs, yells “JUMP!” and the frog jumps a
fifth of a meter.
Then he cuts off a third leg, yells “JUMP!” and the frog does not jump. He yells
“JUMP!” again, and the frog does not jump.
“Aha!” he says. “I have my result!” So he carefully writes in his lab book: “When
three legs are removed, a frog becomes deaf.”
Foundations of
Research
Example of a (silly) spurious correlation.
EXAMPLE
r = .87
http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=2948, 4/9/15
 This (obvious nonsense) correlation comes from searching through
a huge data set to find variables that move the same way over time.
 Looking at the graph it is difficult to not want to figure out how Miss
America causes murder by steam (older Miss As are ‘hotter’?).
 This is a basic perceptual fallacy; if the movement of B follows the
movement of A, A must cause B.
43
Foundations of
Research
44
Spurious correlations
EXAMPLE
r = .666
http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=359, 4/9/15
More nonsense…
Although it does support the hypothesis that Nicolas Cage is evil…
2 clear & readable links from Charlie Kufs’ Cats With Stats Blog:
Correlations and Causality
How to tell a good correlation
More weird correlations?
Here.
Foundations of
Research

Spurious correlations

Often we get tripped by intuitive rather than logical interpretation
Correlation
EXAMPLE
45
3rd variables in spurious correlations
Cause
Shoe size and reading
performance for elementary
school children
Age
Age: Older children have larger
shoe sizes and read
better.
Number of police officers and
number of crimes
Population density:
density In highly
dense areas, there are more
police officers and more crimes.
(Glass & Hopkins, 1996)
Number of storks sighted and the
population of Oldenburg,
Germany, over a six-year period
(Box, Hunter, & Hunter, 1978)
Time
Time: Both variables were
increasing over time.
Foundations of
Research
3rd variables in spurious correlations
46
EXAMPLE
Intuitively we may try to figure out how kids with bigger feet read better,
or storks lead to more people…
These correlations are senseless unless we consider the underlying (3rd)
variables that really are important.
It is common for a 3rd variable to actually cause both terms in the correlation.
Foundations of
Research
 From the correlation in this chart
fat appears to cause cancer.
 What else could be going on?

Countries with the most fat &
cancer tend to be wealthier, more
urbanized and industrialized.

They may also show different
patterns of exercise and prepared
(“factory”) food consumption.

Do wealth and urbanization
increase exposure to carcinogens
other than fat? (The 3rd variable problem).
Even an “obvious” causal link can
be questionable or incomplete if it
relies on correlational data only.
FIGURE 3 | Association between fat intake
and breast cancer.
Age-adjusted death rate per 100,000 people
The chart makes this causal explanation
visually compelling…

47
Interpreting correlations
Total dietary fat intake (g day-1)
From: Diet and cancer — the European Prospective Investigation into
Cancer and Nutrition. S. Bingham & E. Riboli, Nature Reviews Cancer 4,
206-215 (March 2004). doi:10.1038/nrc1298,
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v4/n3/fig_tab/nrc1298_F3.html
Foundations of
Research


Why do we reject scientific explanations
When they conflict with intuition or popular opinion.

Scientific explanations are often abstract & difficult; intuition is
easier and “feels better”.

Strong conformity pressure for popular opinion;
Misunderstanding of chance & coincidence;

Spurious correlations

High salience of single events
 Anti-vaccine activists vividly describe individual children who
developed autism symptoms after receiving vaccines.
 Broader but less dramatic research shows vaccine administration to
be unrelated to autism.
 Autism can first occur at the age when vaccines are administered,
making for ‘high drama’ case studies.

…Jenny McCarthy’s son has changed more attitudes than has a
mountain of science showing her to be wrong….
48
Foundations of
Research


Why do we reject scientific explanations
49
When they conflict with intuition or popular opinion.

Scientific explanations are often abstract & difficult; intuition is
easier and “feels better”.

Strong conformity pressure for popular opinion;
Misunderstanding of chance & coincidence;

Spurious correlations

High salience of single events
 Uber, AirB&B and other ‘sharing economy’ services occasionally
have a disaster, increasing fears that they can be dangerous.

In 2015 a guest was harmed by his Spanish AirB&B host.

That day AirB&B had 800,000 guests around the world…

If an event like that happens once a month your odds of being
harmed are 1 out of 23 million.

The salience of that one event can out-weigh its wildly small odds
of happening to any given guest.
Foundations of
Research
Why do we reject scientific explanations?

When they conflict with intuition or popular opinion.

Misunderstanding of chance & coincidence.

Cognitive availability and confirmatory bias
 We recall information
that confirms our
beliefs or feelings
 “correlations”
 salient events
50
Foundations of
Research
51
Why do we reject scientific explanations?

When they conflict with intuition or popular opinion.

Misunderstanding of chance & coincidence.

Cognitive availability and confirmatory bias

Emotional needs; we are drawn to beliefs that:
 Give us a sense of control over our world
 Provide a “larger picture” or sense of transcendence
People can be vulnerable to Astrology,
ESP, Psychics and similar
superstitions because they lead us to
think we can better predict and control
our world.
Shutterstock
Shutterstock
Foundations of
Research
52
Why do we reject scientific explanations?

When they conflict with intuition or popular opinion.

Misunderstanding of chance & coincidence.

Cognitive availability and confirmatory bias

Emotional needs; we are drawn to beliefs that:
 Give us a sense of control over our world
 Provide a “larger picture” or sense of transcendence
 Cultural patterns


Our polarized political culture intentionally confuses fact with
opinion.
Uncritical media coverage of even silly ‘theories’.
o
The [evolution, Obama birth place…] “controversy”.
Foundations of
Research
53
Why do we reject scientific explanations?
 Cultural patterns
Our polarized political culture intentionally confuses fact with
opinion.
The illegal immigrant “crisis” in the U.S. is largely a political fiction.

 Illegal (and legal) immigrants are not entering the country at near the
catastrophic numbers cited by politicians and commentators. Outflow of
immigrants is roughly equal to inflow.
 Immigrants – legal and illegal – show lower rates of crime, alcohol & drug
abuse and other social problems than does the general population.
Political and media commentators cite an immigrant “crisis” (likening most
illegal immigrants to hardened criminals) to generate fear and win votes by
proposing simplistic (and even inhumane) “solutions”.
Individuals threatened by a changing economy & culture can focus
their anxiety on a social “out group” rather than the less controllable,
more abstract international economic processes.
Foundations of
Research

54
Why “Truthiness”?
Our media and political cultures increasingly merge
fact and opinion:


‘Truth’ is increasingly seen as personal, not public or
objective.
Quasi-mystical belief systems (and expensive
products!) such as The Secret gain millions of
followers by positing that physical reality can
be molded by individual beliefs.
From: http://images.thesecret.tv/TheSecret-Press-Kit-Dec13.pdf
Foundations of
Research

“Truthiness” in modern culture
Our media and political cultures increasingly merge
fact and opinion:
 “Truthiness”, introduced by Stephen Colbert in his first show, was
the Merriam Webster word of the year in 2006.
 It means accepting something as ‘fact’ primarily because it feels
right.
 Colbert was framing “truthiness” as emblematic of our collective
refusal to adhere to hard facts – e.g., science and empiricism.
Some Context:
The President had nominated Harriet
Meyers, his personal lawyer, to the
Supreme Court.
Click for
Colbert’s
Truthiness
description.
She was clearly unqualified (by her
own report).
The President pushed for her so he
would have an ally on the court.
55
Foundations of
Research


Why “Truthiness”?
56
Our media and political cultures
increasingly merge fact and opinion:
‘Facts’ or science are viewed by some as elitist or
politically suspect…

Academia and, in particular, social sciences do have a bias
toward liberal thought…(Click for an excellent overview in The New Yorker).

This frees anti-science commentators
to attribute everything from evolution,
the “big bang” theory, climate change,
to the effects of gun violence to
ideology, not fact.

Using emotional resonance as a
criteria for belief allows us to ignore or
distort facts that do not fit.
Foundations of
Research
American penchant for
conspiracy theories
57

Another social / cognitive process that undermines the
acceptance of science are conspiracy theories.

What are conspiracy theories and where do they come
from?

Conspiracy theories…
Image: http://rememberbuilding7.org/ Click for a site dedicated to
disputing the official version of the collapse of “Building 7” at the 9/11
site.
Foundations of
Research

58
Stem from a fear-based cognitive style

Richard Hofstadter accurately described a paranoid style in
American politics, featuring conspiracy theories from the very outset
of the country.

Simple stress, powerlessness or alienation can induce irrational or
conspiratorial beliefs.



Conspiracy theories
…particularly those that lessen complexity and restore a sense of
control to life.
Strong free-market beliefs can induce conspiratorial thinking when
issues such as climate change may justify economic regulations
(here and here).
Our brain may create vulnerability to conspiracy views;

Our brain has evolved to see patterns in our world, and to respond
quickly to threat.

These two dispositions can, under stress or uncertainty, lead to
conspiracy perspectives.
Foundations of
Research




Stem from a fear-based cognitive style
Our brain may create vulnerability to conspiracy views;
Consensus among scientists is (falsely) denied, to make
conclusions appear arbitrary.

…”many scientists do not accept climate change…”

…”scientists disagree on how evolution even works…”
“Closed loop” logic;


Conspiracy theories
Attempts to refute the theory are just evidence of the conspiracy
itself (e.g., the “lame stream media” is in on the climate change
hoax).
Circumstantial evidence is overstated

…”if it is cold today global warming must be a myth…”

…”my child became autistic just after he got vaccinated…”
59
Foundations of
Research
Conspiracy theories
60

Stem from a fear-based cognitive style

Our brain may create vulnerability to conspiracy views;

Consensus among scientists is denied, to make conclusions
appear arbitrary.

“Closed loop” logic;

Circumstantial evidence is overstated

Powerful confirmatory bias


“Evidence” consistent with the conspiracy theory is accepted &
publicized
Contrary evidence is ignored, dismissed or distorted.
Foundations of
Research
Examples of anti-scientific conspiracy theories.

Autism is caused by the MMR Vaccine

HIV is not the cause of AIDS

Climate change is a Hoax
61
“Just so you know, global warming is a total fraud and it is being designed
by… liberals who get elected at the local level want state government to do the
work and let them make the decisions.”…
“That’s what the game plan is. It’s … more and bigger control over our lives by
higher levels of government. And global warming is that strategy in spades”.
Dana Rohrabacher. R California.
“One of the difficulties in examining the issue of the climate change and
greenhouse gases is that there is a wide range of scientific opinion on this
issue and the science community does not agree to the extent of the problem
or the critical threshold of when this problem is truly catastrophic.” Daryl Issa,
R-Cal.
Foundations of
Research


Bottom line
A scientific (rational, empirical) perspective:

Has critical thinking as a core value

Combines rational thought with empirical evidence

Is not just a “research method”, but a larger approach to
knowledge.
American media, political and religious trends are often
not supportive of empirical or scientific thought.
• Political polarization often requires a rejection of empirical thought
• “Truthiness”; we take our own feelings as a guide to what is true.
• Conspiracy theories

62
In addition, our cognitive and emotional dispositions
may make rational, evidence-based judgments more
difficult…
Foundations of
Research

Intuition and Magical thought
63
Our brains may be “hard wired” for intuitive, “Magical
Thought”
Foundations of
Research


Intuition, Magical Thought & science
64
The brain has evolved to make snap judgments about
causation:

We leap to conclusions before logic can be applied.

Our emotional needs can distort our perceptions before the
logical brain kicks in…
Our need to feel in control can lead to imagine cause
and effect when there really is none (…The Secret, “magic”
foods or diets, rituals).
 We experience
emotions faster
than we can think
Shutterstock
WTF !!??!!
Foundations of
Research


Intuition, Magical Thought & science
65
The brain has evolved to make snap judgments about
causation:

We leap to conclusions before logic can be applied.

Our emotional needs can distort our perceptions before the
logical brain kicks in…
Our need to feel in control can lead to imagine cause and
effect when there really is none (…The Secret, “magic” foods or
diets, rituals).
 Taking a rational,
empirical approach often
requires us to suppress
our intuitions or emotions
NYTimes.com: Leonard Nimoy, best known for playing the character Spock in the Star Trek
television shows and films, died at 83. Click image for story.
By Robin Lindsay on Publish Date February 27, 2015. Photo by NBC, via Photofest.
Foundations of
Research


Magic in Western culture.
“Magical thought” is a spurious belief in cause &
effect.

Friday the 13th is unlucky

Never open an umbrellas inside / put a hat on the bed

Cross your fingers / Knock on wood for luck

666 is evil / Break a mirror get 7 years bad luck

Black cat crossing your path is unlucky

Never walk under a ladder

Always pick up a penny
How many of these
do you agree with?
A = Pretty much all these are true
B = 4 or 5 are true
C = 2 or 3 are true
D = I can see at least one that is true
E = None of them are true
66
Foundations of
Research
Magical thought is woven into mainstream culture
Pop self-improvement methods: such as
 “The secret”,
 the great majority of Dr. Oz’s promotions…
Both promoted by
celebrities such as
Oprah Winfrey.
Core concept: “The law of attraction”;
 A form of sympathetic magic: like attracts like.

Feelings and thoughts send a “frequency” to the
world that attracts other things on that frequency.
 Therefore, your thoughts affect nature directly:

Thinking about money will actually change your finances.

“Healthy thoughts” will directly affect your body.
Evidence:


Yes, being optimistic helps get you motivated
NO, your brain cannot reorder the physical world.
67
Foundations of
Research
68
Magical thought and marketing
Magnetic Athletic gear
Concept:
Magnets enhance blood flow.

Iron in the blood is attracted to a
magnetic force.
The body has an electromagnetic
energy balance.

Magnets ‘rebalance’ energy to
lower strain & injuries.
Click for a Live Science article on
magnetic healing.
Evidence:
 Magnetism has a long & sorry history in fraudulent “magic” cures.
 Blood iron is bound to hemoglobin and is not magnetic.
 There is no identifiable ‘electromagnetic energy balance’.
 No evidence supports either the theory or practice of magnet therapy.
Foundations of
Research
Magical thought and marketing
69
Click the image for an excellent review of
this magical thought by Christopher Chabris
and Daniel Simons in the New York Times.
Chabris & Simons describe “The Secret”,
“The Power” and the like as perfectly
exploiting our cognitive bias’ and limitations:
 We have limitless (cognitive, physical,
spiritual) powers, if only we could unleash
them…;
 The “nature” we see about us is infinitely
malleable; our thoughts and feelings override
/ modify the physical world.
 “Physics” and “The Ancients” tell us all this is
true.
Illustration by Ross MacDonald /New York Times.
Foundations of
Research
70
Magical thought and marketing
Anti-aging beauty products
Concept:
Substances that enhance healing
inside the body can reverse
wrinkles when applied to the skin.
 Collagen, stem cells.
Evidence:
Click image for lengthy WebMD review.
 Most botanicals do not even penetrate the skin.
 No efficacy data at all.
 Collagen in high consistent doses can increase skin firmness, but
the effect vanishes once the regimen stops.

Marketed as ‘rare’ products, with prices into the hundreds of dollars.

Cheap brands are typically identical to expensive labels.
Click for a brief Chicago Tribune article
on anti-aging creams..
Foundations of
Research
Magical thought and marketing
Some ads not only suggest anti-aging properties, but seem
to touch on some politically sensitive topics…
Image from Beauty and Fashion forum of http://forums.vrzone.com/. Click image for direct link.
71
Foundations of
Research
72
Magical thought and marketing
Diet supplements
Concept:
 “Natural” ingredients in very
high doses enhance health.
 High doses of agents already in
the body (vitamins, minerals)
enhance health.
Evidence:
 Most supplements (even from major stores) have no active ingredients.
 In a New York Times investigation Target's “Up and Up” brand of St. Johns
Wort and Valerian root contained none of those ingredients.
 Some unlisted ingredients (ephedrine, caffeine) are dangerous in
high doses.
 Multi-billion dollar industry with virtually no regulations, and zero
proven efficacy.
Click for the NYT article
on supplements.
Foundations of
Research
Magical thought and marketing
 Why do so many people
believe in these “magical”
products?
 We are lied to by marketers,
who we irrationally trust. (See,
for example, http://www.ionloop.com/)
 We want to believe
• We want to have control
over our world
• We filter information to
support our needs.
Click the image for a
cute satire of
homeopathic medicine.
73
Foundations of
Research
Rational and irrational thought
74
Critical / Empirical thought is often not the norm
 Political / religious / ideological biases
SUMMARY
 Many reject a scientific perspective when it threatens an
existing belief system
 Empiricism can be viewed as the enemy of political or economic
interests.
 The distinction between fact and opinion is increasingly blurred.
 Cognitive biases
 Spurious correlations – coincidence – can seem to be “real”
 We make snap judgments about cause & effect
 Emotional needs.
 We often want to believe;
 We seek control and predictability
 We are vulnerable to explanations
that make us feel good.
Foundations of
Research
Introduction to science, 3
Please go on to the quiz.
75