Guiding Principles Of Scientific Thinking
Correlation vs Causation
In this scenario, the author poorly demonstrates the differences between correlation and causation. Correlation is when two or more things have an association with each other whereas causation is when one variable causes direct changes to another variable (Lilienfeld et al., 2017). Just because autistic children showed behavioural improvements when dairy was taken out of their diets, does not mean that their behaviour was caused by the effects of dairy.
As mentioned in class (Huggon, 2018), causation can only be determined if a control group is used and if other steps, such as considering other variables, are taken. Therefore, in order for this scenario to follow the guiding principle, a scientific study involving a group placed on a dairy-free diet and a group that is not subjected to any dietary changes must be executed, all while controlling for any other variables that could influence the final results.
Ruling out Rival Hypothesis
In the scenario, the author states that when autistic children are put on a casein-free diet their autistic behaviours are reduced, but fails to rule out any other possible hypotheses that would result in the same findings. By not addressing other plausible hypotheses, the scenario lacks to defend itself from both confirmation bias and belief perseverance (Huggon, 2018). The scenario bases its claims on studies where the children were put on casein-free and gluten-free diets. In order for the scenario to follow the principle, it would have to further investigate the effects of only a gluten-free diet in autistic children. From there they could determine which diet change, if not both, results in improved autistic behaviour.
Replicability
As defined in Lilienfeld et al. (2017), replicability refers to the ability of a study's findings to be duplicated. Ideally, these studies are to be conducted by an independent investigator (Lilienfeld et al., 2017). When multiple scientific studies do not report the same findings, it is important to be wary of the results they present. The scenario fails to follow the principle because it bases its claims on fourteen studies that were performed by different researchers. In addition, it also fails to state whether or not the studies had been done more than once to see if the results were reoccurring. The scenario could follow the guiding principle by basing its claims solely on the results of one researcher's findings and making sure that the study has been done more than once.
Warning Signs of PseudoscienceOverreliance on Anecdotes
An overreliance on anecdotes is displayed in this scenario. According to Lilienfeld et al. (2017), there are several reasons as to why anecdotes are not reliable sources of scientific evidence. The testimonial presented in the scenario is based only on the experience of one mother and her son. This makes the anecdote both difficult to verify and difficult to generalize.
Another thing to note about anecdotes is their inability to explain cause and effect. It is possible that the woman's son displayed an improvement in his behaviour because of another change made in his routine which was not noted in the testimony. Instead of relying heavily on testimonials, the author should provide statistical data gathered from a well-done scientific study to support the scenario's claims.
References:
- Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J., Namy, L.L., Woolf, N.J., Cramer, K.M. & Schmaltz, R. (2017). Psychology: From inquiry to understanding (3rd Canadian ed.). Toronto, ON: Pearson.
- Huggon, W. (2018, September). Scientific Thinking. Psychology 102: Introduction to Psychology I. Lecture conducted from Ryerson University, Toronto, ON. Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Website: https://courses.ryerson.ca/d2l/le/content/205959/Home
