[Statistics for Sociology] Different Ways that We Can Know Something.(2)

Goal of Science

Discovery of Regularities       

Discovery of Regularities can be considered in three ways.

(1)   Description of Behavior

Before we can find out what causes a behavior, we must be able to carefully describe the behavior and what people who exhibit the same behavior have in common.

(2)   Discovery of lawful relationships among aspects of behavior

As the describing of behaviors progresses, various regularities appear omong behavioral events.

These regularities form laws of behavior.

Law: A universal statement of the nature of things that allows reliable predictions of future events.

-          Laws are comprehensive, fundamental statements about reality.

(3)   Search for Causes

A major goal of science is to “understand the world” – that is, a search for the causes of events we observe.

Search for Causes is so important that all other goals of science we will discuss can be considered as SUBGOALS OF THE SEARCH FOR CAUSES.

Development of Theories

Theory: A general statement about the relationship between two or more variables.

Theories should be:

-          Deterministic:  Logical and orderly, emphasizing the systematic CAUSAL relations between variables.

-          Empirically Grounded:  Generate predictions about readily observable events.

-          Parsimonious:  Simple and concise statement that allows you to predict a wide variety of conceptually similar behaviors.

-          Testable and Falsifiable: Ability to empirically test whether the theory is correct or incorrect in an unambiguous manner.

A theory must make a DEFINITE PREDICTION that can be tested to determine whether it is correct or incorrect.

-          E.G. Theory about how people would behave in space colonies not a scientific theory because we cannot currently test it.  If ever develop space colonies, it would be a scientific theory.

Most FRUITFUL TEST OF A THEORY is to set up a condition in which the theory CAN FAIL.

Philosopher Sir Karl Popper stated that a scientific theory can never be proven true because there are many false theories that can predict any given outcome.

-          No matter how many times the predicted result occurs there might still be another theory that actually is the true theory.

Therefore,

-          We make up theories in order to knock them down.

-          The ones that survive the testing process can tentatively be accepted as true by a process of elimination.

-          ** We can never prove the theory to be true for certain, but we gain more confidence in a
      theory he more tests that it survives.

Difference between Laws and Theories

Laws are much more general, theories have boundary conditions – times when they do and do not apply.

Even the best of theories offers accurate prediction only in certain circumstances.

Because theories have boundary conditions, it is possible for more than one theory to be true.

-          This happens, for example, when one theory predicts behavior in one set of circumstances (or for one group of people) and another theory predicts the same kind of behavior in a different set of circumstances (or for a different group of people).

-          E.g. Place Theory versus Frequency Theory of Pitch

Role of Theories

Theories play three crucial roles in the development of a science.

(1)   Organize Knowledge and Explain Laws.

In the absence of a theory, simply have a collection of descriptions and some laws.

The theory pulls these descriptions and laws together into a unified framework.

-          Individual fact is explained by being shown to be an instance of a general law.

-          In turn, the law is explained by its relation to the theory.

-          The more comprehensive the theory, the more descriptions and laws it can explain.

-          The better the theory, the more specific and precise the explanation.

-          These two considerations are often in conflict (broad and precise).

-          Broad theory that can account for more descriptions and laws is often less precise.

(2)   Predict New Laws.

A good theory not only organizes and explains many different laws and phenomena that were previously unrelated but also suggests ways to discover new laws and lead to new phenomena.

(3)   Guiding Research.

A good theory suggests new experiments and helps researchers choose alternative ways of performing them.

This role of a theory in guiding research goes hand in hand with a theory’s role in predicting new laws.

-          When scientists use a theory to predict a new law, they also use the theory to suggest new studies that can be performed to establish that new law.

(4)   Other Goals.

Many psychology books state that the Goals of Psychology are:

-          Description

-          Prediction

-          Control

Prediction and Control actually emerge from the Description Process.

If we have done our Job of Description well, we have established laws of behavior.

-          Knowledge of these laws allows us to Predict the Occurrence of Behavior.

-          If we can Predict Behavior, we are also able to Control it if we have Control over the events that Cause it.

-          Description, Prediction, Control are three aspects of the Goal of Discovering Regularities of Behaviors.

Hypotheses in Science

Hypotheses are predictions about specific events that are derived from one or more theories.

For hypotheses to serve as tests of specific theories, they must follow in a clear and logical fashion from the theories in question, preferably under conditions clearly specified by the theory.

Many times, a theory clearly and obviously leads to a specific hypothesis in a given circumstance.

-          In these instances, hypothesis testing boils down to theory testing.

-          A lack of support for the hypothesis translates into a lack of support for the theory that produced it.

More often, researchers may be uncertain about the conditions under which the theory applies.

-          Thus, they test hypotheses in specific circumstances to see whether these circumstances fall within the boundary conditions of the theory.

Other times, two different theories might make opposing predictions in the same conditions, and researchers might then outline two rival hypotheses.

-          Then, if the results support one theory, it is to the detriment of the other theory.

Theories versus Hypotheses

Theory:  General statement about the relationship between two or more variables.

-          Theory of Operant Learning – Behaviors that are reinforced increase in rate or frequency and behaviors that are not reinforced or are punished decrease in rate or frequency.

Hypothesis:  Specific statement about a specific relationship between two or more operationally defined variables.

-          If a child is given a star each time he or she raises his or her hand and is sent to the corner each time he or she talks out of turn, the child will increase its hand raising behavior and decrease his or her talking out of turn behavior.

Operations Definitions link hypotheses to theories.

A crucial aspect of the operational definition is to state a procedure, or operation, that specifies the meaning of the concept.

Operationism: A theoretical concept must be tied to observable operations that any person can observe or perform.

Operationism has two meanings:

(1)   Strictly limits the kinds of concepts with which science can deal.

If there is no way of defining the concept according to observable operations, the concept is barred from science.

(2)   Scientific concepts are defined according to the operations by which they are measured.

Operational Definitions are a part of this.

Paradigms:

A paradigm is a pervasive way of thinking about a branch of science that includes all the assumptions and theories that are accepted as true by a group of scientists.

According to Thomas Kuhn (1962) during a period of what he calls normal science, nearly all scientists accept the same paradigm and work under its influence.

Eventually, problems develop that cannot be explained without difficulty by the paradigm.

These anomalies cause a crisis, during which other paradigms are created that compete with the original paradigm.

A new paradigm will be accepted when it accounts more successfully for empirical data than did the old paradigm.

According to Kuhn (1962), the course of science is not a steady progression toward a goal.

Rather, the course of science consists of phases of normal science, each dominated by a single paradigm, alternating with periods of crisis in which revolutions install new paradigms that last as long as each paradigm is reasonably successful in accounting for empirical data.

Kuhn believes that it is not possible to choose between different paradigms on the basis of data alone.

This is because what counts as data depends on the METHODS, THEORIES, and ASSUMPTIONS of the particular paradigm.

-          For example, someone operating under the paradigm of Psychodynamic Theory would collect much different data than someone operating under the Paradigm of Learning Theory.

-          And someone operating under the Paradigm of Cognitive Neuroscience would collect much different data than either Psychodynamic Theory or Learning Theory.

Because it is not possible to choose between different paradigms on the basis of data alone, the switch from one paradigm to another paradigm involves social and personal forces to such an extent that it is sometimes likened to a political revolution.

The mainstream opinion about Kuhn’s ideas for science is ha scientists pursue research traditions because they solve theoretical and empirical problems.

In this way science is rational because scientists can choose the paradigm that is currently solving the most problems.

Social Construction

Another view of science that has begun to gain a following in psychology.

According to the Social Constructionist View, science does not deal as much with reality as with the beliefs of scientists.

Because scientists are people like everyone else, their views are not necessarily more objective than those of anyone else.

The idea is that we have no idea the nature of reality.

-          So called knowledge does not reflect the free-standing reality, existing apart from the knower and revealed by careful application of procedures.

-          What we purport to know is a construction based upon the contexts within which it is created.

-          Knowledge is a product of social exchange; what we call knowledge is simply what we agree to call truth.

This is no different from the beliefs of many of the early Greek Philosophers.