1. Four sources of knowledge about the world
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, 2015
The University of Illinois Chicago
Do not use or reproduce without permission
Cranach, Tree of Knowledge [of Good and Evil] (1472).
Public Domain, at Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna Austria

2. Where does our knowledge come from?
Section Overview
We have been using different heuristics to think about how science works.
We have seen that our entire approach is grounded in a value for critical, open and creative thought.
We then develop “content” – findings – based on clear and objective methods.
What do we mean by “Content”?
What product does science produce?

3. Where does our knowledge come from?
Section Overview
We have been using different heuristics to think about how science works.
We have seen that science “works” by producing a set of interlocking knowledge sources…
…ranging from concrete, specific facts, to more general, universal laws of nature.

4. Where does our knowledge come from?
Section Overview
We have been using different heuristics to think about how science works.
We have seen that science “works” by producing a set of interlocking knowledge sources…
…ranging from concrete, specific facts, to more general, universal laws of nature.
The center of this knowledge structure constitutes the “guts” of scientific research.

5. Where does our knowledge come from?
Section Overview
We have been using different heuristics to think about how science works.
The model of the actual research process we will use proceeds through:
…the identification of the larger study issue;
…theory and hypothesis development;
…and actual data collection.

6. Where does our knowledge come from?
Section Overview
We have been using different heuristics to think about how science works.
The model of the actual research process we will use proceeds through:
…the identification of the larger study issue;
…theory and hypothesis development;
…and actual data collection.
Recognizing that irrational thought or bias can always derail – or prevent – an empirical approach

7. Where does our knowledge come from?
Section Overview
We have been using different heuristics to think about how science works.
Let’s compliment this discussion with a review of where we get our knowledge from…
…as individuals
…and in the process of scientific research.

8. How do we know things? Authority / Tradition Intuitions
Section Overview
How do we know things?
Authority / Tradition
Intuitions
Empiricism; direct experience
Rationalism / theory
(Of course there are many ways to think about what ‘knowledge’ is; this is just one convenient system.)

9. Authority: “I believe what they tell me”
Sources of knowledge
Authority: “I believe what they tell me”
Credible / powerful people
Institutions & traditions
Culturally important texts: Bible, Quran…
Shutterstock.com

10. Sources of knowledge, intuition
Authority: “I believe what they tell me”
Intuition: “I believe my Gut feelings”
Emotionality or a “hunch”
“Emotional IQ” (EIQ)
Shutterstock.com

11. Sources of knowledge, Empiricism
Authority: “I believe what they tell me”
Intuition: “I believe my Gut feelings”
Empiricism: “I believe what I can see”
Simple sensation or perception
Direct observation; data
Image: Shutterstock.com

12. Sources of knowledge, Rationalism
Authority: “I believe what they tell me”
Intuition: “I believe my Gut feelings”
Empiricism: “I believe what I can see”
Rationalism: “I believe what makes sense.”
Logical coherence
Articulation with other ideas
Shutterstock

13. Sources of knowledge, Science
Authority: Credible / powerful people
Important social institutions
Intuition: Emotionality or a “hunch”
These are the most central
Empiricism: Simple sensation or perception
Direct observation; data
Rationalism: Logical coherence
Articulation with other ideas
All these knowledge sources can contribute to science

14. Authority-based belief
Shutterstock.com
What are some of the things you believe based on authorities?
Who or what do you consider to be an “authority” on something?

15. Authority-based belief
Key distinction:
Authority
Beliefs derived from experience or accumulated knowledge:
Authoritarianism
Beliefs derived from strongly held (political, religious, personal…) ideology:
Source of authority is typically evidence-based.
…derived from a history of studies in a field.
“Authority” in scientific or other field
Amenable to new or conflicting evidence.
Source of authority is typically person-based.
Institutional position; Clergy, Imam, politician
‘Sacred’ texts
Ideological leaders
Rarely amenable to new or conflicting evidence.
This crucial distinction often gets lost in discussions of how we “know” something.
Strong leaders can change authoritarian systems; c.f. Pope Francis.

16. Authority-based belief…
What are some advantages of authority – based belief?
Provides a stable core of principles; knowledge & beliefs…
People with extensive experience & knowledge have important insights.
Can move a field beyond the data; visionaries, revolutionaries…
Shutterstock.com
Shutterstock.com

17. Authority-based belief…
Disadvantages?
Can be insensitive to proof or evidence
Can be misused for financial / political ends…
Highly susceptible to political or commercial bias
Can require evidence / science be corrupted, distorted or ignored.
Can ignore or circumvent normal scientific procedures (e.g., Political requirements for Intelligent Design content in biology instruction).
Click image for Sanford Medicine collection of Doctor smoking ads

18. Authority-based belief
E X A M P L E
Psychoanalysis is based on the writings of key authorities rather than actual psychological evidence, but contributed substantially to psychology.
Public Domain; Loyalbooks.com.
Christian “conversion therapies” continue to try and turn gay men straight, despite evidence that they are destructive.
Image:
Click to rent ($2.99) at iTunes.

19. 2: Intuition, emotion, superstition
Shutterstock.com
When / how do we rely on intuition?
What do you just “know” intuitively?

20. Intuition, emotion, superstition…
Advantages?
Can provide emotional or personal insight
Origin of novel hypotheses or theories
Can move a field beyond the data
Disadvantages?
Magical thinking: often explicitly non-empirical
Emotion (e.g., fear) can outweigh rationality or evidence

21. Intuition can be invaluable to science.
E X A M P L E
Intuition can be invaluable to science.
Werner Heisenberg, a key developer of quantum theory, wrote that his musical training helped him appreciate scientific theory.
Posted in myconfinedspace.com, September 25th, 2008 by PaganPaul
Shutterstock.com
“New age” therapies and products flourish because they satisfy our emotional wishes, not necessarily by doing anything…

22. 3. Empiricism: Directly observing the natural world
Shutterstock.com
What empirical knowledge do you rely on?
Think of some “facts” you know…

23. Empiricism or simple exposure
Advantages?
Grounds knowledge in “real world”.
Confirm intuition by observation
Makes knowledge public (e.g., Copernican revolution)
Shutterstock.com

24. Making science public
Nicolaus Copernicus, 1473 –1543, Renaissance mathematician and astronomer. First published a heliocentric rather than geocentric model of the universe.
Derived his model from a combination of logic and empirical observations of the sky.
Galileo Galilei, , Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher. Invented the telescope and used it to confirm Copernicus’ heliocentric model.
Key participant in Renaissance Scientific Revolution; established the central role of unbiased observation as the basis for theory.
Refuted the role of religious dogma in establishing ‘truth’. Was convicted of heresy, sentenced to lifetime house arrest, had his book burned.
Seen as the “Father of Modern Science” for establishing the importance of empirical observation over dogma in several branches of science.
Click for Bio: liveScience.com
Click bio.: Max Planck Institute.

25. Empiricism or simple exposure
Advantages?
Grounds knowledge in “real world”.
Confirm intuition by observation
Makes knowledge public
Disadvantages / limitations?
Simple illusions / misperceptions / measurement error
Confirmatory bias
Oversensitive to emotional / perceptual salience
Spurious correlations
Anti-science use of naïve empiricism

26. Empirical data often cannot counter ideology
E X A M P L E
Stereotypes of social groups – African-Americans, Asians, gays – have been overturned by direct experience and empirical data.
Although the jury is still out on the cops & doughnuts stereotype…
Shutterstock.com

27. Empirical data often cannot counter ideology
E X A M P L E
Stereotypes of social groups – African-Americans, Asians, gays – have been overturned by direct experience and empirical data.
Click for article from SFGate.com
It has taken years for abstinence-only sex education to recede, despite clear empirical evidence that it does not work.

28. Limitations to empiricism
Why is it difficult for us to use empirical evidence in our decision making?
Illusions
Confirmatory bias
Emotional salience
Spurious correlations
Naïve empiricism
Our perceptions of the world can be simply mistaken

29. Limits of empiricism: 1. Simple illusions
Akiyoshi KITAOKA, Psychology, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan

30. How many Fs do you see in this passage?
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE- SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF- IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.
A = 2 B = 3 C = 4 D = 5 E = 6

31. Limitations to empiricism: Confirmatory Bias
Why is it difficult for us to use empirical evidence in our decision making?
Illusions
Confirmatory bias
Emotional salience
Spurious correlations
Naïve empiricism
Our perceptions are often biased by what we expect to see…

32. Limits of empiricism: 2. Confirmatory bias
It can seem as though Cops are particularly fond of doughnuts.
Is that really what we see?
Shutterstock.com
How much are our perceptions or memories due to what we expect to see?

33. Limits of empiricism: 2. Confirmatory bias
Cops and doughnuts
Cop?
Yes No
Yes
Doughnut? No
Shutterstock.com
This is a subjective co-occurrence matrix. It illustrates what we think we see…
 = How memorable are each of these combinations?

34. Limits of empiricism: 2. Confirmatory bias
Cops and doughnuts
Cop?
Yes No  
Yes
Doughnut?
Seeing a non-cop who is eating a doughnut at least tells us that people other than cops eat doughnuts.
We do not register this as information at all.
Seeing someone who is not a cop, and not eating a doughnut, tells us nothing, of course.
This cell is visually & cognitively salient.
We recall this best…
…and, since we ignore all the other cells, makes us think we have empirical evidence for the cops & doughnuts hypothesis.
Seeing a cop not eating a doughnut – particularly if we see this all the time – should tell us a lot.
Maybe cops and doughnuts are not really a thing…
…but we typically will not register this as information.   No
 = How memorable are each of these combinations

35. Limits of empiricism: 2. Confirmatory bias
Cops and doughnuts
Cop?
Yes No  
This is how stereotypes – e.g., of different ethic, religious or other groups – are maintained.
We are over –sensitive to confirmatory information.
Yes
Doughnut?   No
Shutterstock.com
We ‘see’ (or remember) what we expect to see…
 = How memorable are each of these combinations

36. Limitations to empiricism; Emotional Salience
Why is it difficult for us to use empirical evidence in our decision making?
Illusions
Confirmatory bias
Emotional salience
Spurious correlations
Naïve empiricism
Our memories of what we see can be biased by emotions or simple salience (we remember dramatic events better…)

37. Limits of empiricism: 3. Emotional Salience
Observation is never neutral or “objective”
Click for anytimes.com article on misinterpreting coincidence: What are the odds of that? Coincidence in the Age of Conspiracy.
Shutterstock.com
We pay attention to & remember stimuli that are:
Perceptually salient
Address our emotional needs
Salience effects: Which kills more women, breast cancer or cardiovascular disease?
Fear arousal: Is the deficit a genuinely serious economic issue?
Conspiracy theories: Could Kennedy have been killed by a single person? (law of effect)
Fear based attitude change: Democracy is threatened by phony voters  we need to make voting much more difficult…

38. Limitations to empiricism; Spurious correlations
Why is it difficult for us to use empirical evidence in our decision making?
Illusions
Confirmatory bias
Emotional salience
Spurious correlations
Naïve empiricism
We can easily think one event caused the other just because they co-occur [see: Magical Thought]

39. 4. Spurious (naïve empirical) correlations:
The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The Italians drink lots of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
Conclusion: Eat & drink what you like. It's speaking English that kills you. 

40. Spurious correlations…
I dreamed about meeting someone last night.
This afternoon I met this really nice guy / gal on the elevator.
A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one!
B = I don’t believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her
C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone…
D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything.

41. Spurious correlations…
I dreamed about meeting someone last night.
This afternoon I met this really nice guy / gal on the elevator.
This item is clearly silly to most of us (I hope…).
A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one!
B = I don’t believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her
C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone…
D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything.

42. Spurious correlations…
Here is a fallacy that often undermines rational thought:
There actually are many coincidences (spurious correlations)
Wishful thinking may lead us to falsely interpret them as cause and effect.
I dreamed about meeting someone last night.
This afternoon I met this really nice guy / gal on the elevator.
A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one!
B = I don’t believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her
C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone…
D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything.

43. Spurious correlations…
I dreamed about meeting someone last night.
This afternoon I met this really nice guy / gal on the elevator.
Even if we are rational about our dreams, our experience of them may actually affect our behavior…
Whether the dream is “true” or not.
A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one!
B = I don’t believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her
C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone…
D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything.

44. Spurious correlations…
The rational perspective…
No coherent theory can explain how dreams might predict the future…
There is zero evidence to that effect.
…but ‘C’ shows us how dreams may actually have something to do with your behavior.
I dreamed about meeting someone last night.
This afternoon I met this really nice guy / gal on the elevator.
A = Marry him / her now; your dream tells you this is the one!
B = I don’t believe in coincidences; I should at least go out with him / her
C = Thinking about that dream made me more open to meeting someone…
D = Please. Dreams have nothing to do with anything.

45. Limitations to empiricism
Why is it difficult for us to use empirical evidence in our decision making?
Illusions
Confirmatory bias
Emotional salience
Spurious correlations
Naïve empiricism
“Mindless” or Naïve Empiricism can reflect anti-scientific bias
I won’t believe it unless I can directly see it myself…

46. Limits to empiricism: 5. Anti-science & naïve empiricism
The sun obviously goes around the earth; humans must be the center of the universe.
We had a record cold winter; global warming must be a myth.
The “big bang” makes no sense; we clearly are not moving in space.
We cannot “see” things evolving
The world just looks “designed”
Shutterstock.
Shutterstock
Shutterstock
Shutterstock
Shutterstock.
Evolution must be false

47. 5. Anti-science & naïve empiricism
Science asks “how?”, not simply “what?”
Testing hypotheses and developing theories is more important than raw data
Empirical observations must be put into a larger, theoretical context
We cannot directly “see” even the most basic of scientific principles or processes (e.g., gravity…).

48. Rationalism: theory building
What are some things you know rationally?
What is a theory of yours that “just makes sense”?
…and how do you know it is correct?
Shutterstock

49. Advantages / purpose? Disadvantages?
Rationalism
Advantages / purpose?
Develop coherent principles or theories.
Articulate hypothetical constructs* that underlie behavior.
Make our conclusions correspond to other knowledge
Disadvantages?
Do we show bias in the data we use to support the theory?
Are our theories influenced by ideological bias or authority-based belief systems?
*We will talk a lot about these later…

50. Science has advanced via clear and strong theories, that..
Rationalism
Science has advanced via clear and strong theories, that..
Organize our understanding of a field
Guide us toward new hypotheses and research questions
Summarize empirical data
E X A M P L E
Shutterstock
Shutterstock
Click for an overview of Learning Theory from SimplyPsychology
The theory of evolution
Social – cognitive theories in psychology
Basic learning theory

51. Theory; the vanishing mental illness
Until 1974 homosexuality was considered a form of mental illness.
Clinic studies: psychiatrists reported that homosexual therapy patients had psychological problems
Since their sample consisted only of people in therapy, of course all their homosexual patients had problems…
… all their heterosexual patients also had problems!
A strong ideological bias toward viewing homosexuality as pathological blinded them to how wildly biased this “empirical evidence” was.
E X A M P L E
Unfortunately, theory can be prey to non-scientific political or cultural trends…
70’s / 80’s: Independent Population studies and changing attitudes challenged this ideology.
The rejection of homosexuality as mental illness was decided by a vote; there were no empirical criteria
A form of politics still affected this important issue.

52. Bottom line: Ways of knowing and science
Authority / authoritarianism
Provides stable, core principles or beliefs
Limits empirical evidence or alternative views
Intuition / subjective “hunch”
Important source of novel hypotheses / theories / scientific approaches
Emotion-based “wishful thinking” or “magical thought” can make us irrational or ignore / distort empirical facts.
Empiricism
Grounds knowledge in “real” world, provides important hypothesis-testing perspective
Our perceptions are subject to cognitive / emotional biases.
Rationalism / theory
Central purpose of science: coherent explanation of “why” or “how” nature works.
Social or political pressure can limit hypothesis testing or lessen respect for empirical evidence.

53. How do we “Know” something?
Science: Integration of..
Rationalism
Theory
Hypothesis
Empiricism
Objective observation
Control
Operational definitions
Replication
Developing theories – explanations of how or why behavior works – is a core purpose of research.
Empirical data helps us:
describe the world
test hypotheses & develop theory.

54. Authority Intuition Empiricism Rationalism SUMMARY
Sources of knowledge
SUMMARY
Authority
Stable beliefs. Biased / limiting?
Intuition
Important source of ideas. Rational?
Empiricism
Points us toward the Natural World.
Rationalism
We strive to explain nature; why / how.
Multiple cognitive & emotional biases impede empiricism:
Illusions
Confirmatory bias
Emotional salience
Spurious correlations
Naïve empiricism

55. Please go on to next module: What does Science “Do”?
Cranach, Tree of Knowledge [of Good and Evil] (1472)