1. An important part of research is separating the good from the bad. Research shows that even the best and brightest students may hold some beliefs in pseudoscience. It also shows that if discussions about pseudoscience are not handled correctly, there can be a backfire effect where the example of pseudoscience is remembered but not that the claim is actually false (Impey, Buxner, & Antonellis, 2012; Lewandowsky et al., 2012). Describe pseudoscience and give a detailed example (PLEASE DO NOT USE ASTROLOGY AS AN EXAMPLE). Explain how you would teach about your example so that it is clear that it is pseudoscience.
2. People sometimes suggest that psychology cannot be a science because either a) human behavior cannot be predicted with perfect accuracy, or b) most of its subject matter (e.g., thoughts and feelings) cannot be observed directly. Explain how the use of the scientific method and empirical questions helps to dispute those claims. In your response, define and give an example of empirical and nonempirical questions and the scientific method. Do we need to be able to directly observe and predict human behavior with accuracy for psychology to be a science? Why or why not?
3. Define basic and applied research in terms of research in psychology. Pick a topic that is interesting to you and provide three basic research questions for that topic. Then, expand on that to include three applied questions related to your basic research questions. Identify specific variables in each example. Finally, find an article in a research journal related to your topic. Does the research question in that article fit as a basic or applied research question. Why?
4. If we look at science as a general way of understanding the natural world, there are three fundamental features to the scientific approach. Define those features and provide specific examples of each. How are these features related to one another? Include at least one published work from a research journal in your response.
To teach about creation science without a backfire effect, the focus should not be on disproving it directly, as this can make it seem like a legitimate opposing viewpoint. Instead, the lesson should be structured around teaching the foundational principles of genuine science.
Define the Scientific Method: Start by explaining what makes a hypothesis scientific: it must be testable and falsifiable. Use a simple, non-controversial example like gravity.
Present Evidence from Multiple Fields: Show how the age of the Earth is determined by multiple, independent lines of evidence from different scientific disciplines, such as radiometric dating of rocks (geology), dendrochronology (tree rings), and ice core analysis (climatology). Explain that all these different methods consistently point to a very old Earth, with dates in the billions of years.
Contrast Scientific and Pseudoscience Approaches: Without naming "creation science," compare the scientific approach of accumulating diverse, converging evidence with a hypothetical "non-scientific" approach that starts with a conclusion and dismisses any evidence that contradicts it. This allows students to critically evaluate the methods, not just the claims.
Emphasize the Importance of Falsifiability: Explain that a core strength of science is that it can be proven wrong. If new evidence emerged that disproved a fundamental part of a scientific theory, scientists would have to change their understanding. Pseudoscience, by contrast, is not open to being proven wrong. This distinction is crucial for students to grasp.
By focusing on the process of science itself, the lesson provides students with the tools to identify and evaluate any pseudoscientific claim they encounter.
Psychology can be a science because it adheres to the scientific method and asks empirical questions, regardless of the direct observability or predictability of its subject matter. The scientific method is a systematic process for gathering observable, measurable evidence to test a hypothesis. It involves forming a hypothesis, designing a study, collecting data, analyzing the results, and drawing a conclusion, all of which are practices common to all sciences, from physics to biology.
An empirical question is one that can be answered by observation and experience. An example is, "Does mindfulness meditation reduce self-reported stress levels?" This question is empirical because it can be answered by a study that measures stress levels before and after an intervention. In contrast, a nonempirical question is one that cannot be answered by objective observation, such as "Is it ethically wrong to lie?" or "Does a higher power exist?" These questions are based on values, beliefs, or philosophy and are outside the scope of science.
The fact that we cannot predict human behavior with perfect accuracy does not negate psychology as a science. Physics, for example, cannot perfectly predict the path of a single atom, yet it is a science. Psychology, like other sciences, aims to find general principles and probabilistic patterns, not absolute certainties. Furthermore, the inability to directly observe thoughts and feelings is also not a barrier. Many fields of science study phenomena that cannot be directly observed. Astrophysicists study black holes, and particle physicists study quarks,
Sample Answer
Pseudoscience refers to a set of beliefs or practices that claim to be scientific but lack the rigorous methodology, empirical evidence, and falsifiability that define genuine science. Unlike true scientific inquiry, which is self-correcting and open to revision, pseudoscience often relies on anecdotal evidence, cherry-picked data, and an unwillingness to subject its claims to skeptical scrutiny. It frequently uses scientific-sounding jargon to lend an air of authority without adhering to the scientific method.
A detailed example of pseudoscience is creation science, often promoted as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Creation science proponents claim that the Earth and life were created by a supernatural entity in a short period, as described in religious texts. This claim is fundamentally unscientific because it is based on faith and divine revelation, not on testable, falsifiable hypotheses. For example, creation science posits that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, a claim that is in direct contradiction with vast amounts of geological, fossil, and radiometric dating evidence. When presented with this evidence, creation scientists typically reinterpret it to fit their pre-existing beliefs rather than revising their hypothesis, a hallmark of pseudoscience.