Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

TERM 3, LECTURE 1 THINKING LIKE A SCIENTIST (IDENTIFY AND DEFINE…

- - - - ie. i saw bradd pitt in the city yesterday
        evidence: picture on the phone
        ie. I was visited by ALIENS last night
        low probability
        needs extraordinary evidence
        especially think about this in relation to things like neuroscience
  - - - Verificationism: You must be able to provide evidence that supports your claim; verify that it is 100% true
      - Must be able to be observed and confirmed
    - - FALSIFICATION (Karl Popper)
        
        build your theory with the assumption that you COULD be incorrect.
        
        does not mean that you need to prove your claim is wrong
        
        but it must be possible for you to find evidence that refutes your scientific claim
        
        your claim should allow for the possibility that you are incorrect
        - good scientific theories must be able to be falsified
      - TURN OVER E and 7.
        E to verify the claim.
        7 to falsify it.
        YOU DONT turn over 4 because the same logic doesn't work backwards. The CLAIM is that on the cards with the vowel, there will be an even number. Not that the cards with the even number will have a vowel.
        And you can't use K to falsify because it's not a vowel
      - LOOK FOR EVIDENCE THAT VERIFIES EVIDENCE BUT ALSO EVIDENCE THAT COULD FALSIFY IT
      - UNFALSIFIABLE THEORIES
        
        Freudian psychoanalysis
        
        The analyst always have an explanation
        
        explanation can be modified.
        
        Things that can explain EVERYTHING
        
        too many rules, too many variations, not falsifiable
- - - - The degree to which observers agree upon an observation or judgement
      - Measure inter-observer reliability with correlations
        
        positive relationship between the scores of each observer
        
        To have HIGH INTER-OBSERVER RELIABILITY we want BOTH observers to agree
        
        the HIGHER the CORRELATION between observer judgements, the more reliable the results
    - - The degree to which all of the specific items or observations in a multiple item measure behave the same way.
        
        ie. measuring intelligence, all the items should equally measure intelligence
      - HIGH INTERNAL RELIABILITY shows the entire measure is CONSISTENTLY measuring what it should be
        divide the measure into TWO HALVES, compare like with like and look at the correlation between individuals' scores on the two halves
      - WE WANT MORE ITEMS TO MEASURE TO REDUCE ERROR.
    - - the reliability of a measure to produce the same results at different points in time or occasions
      - important to show that the test or measure CONSISTENTLY measures the construct we are interested in, provided no other variables have changed.
        A LARGE DIFFERENCE in scoews between an IDENTICAL TEST taken by the SAME PERSON during TEST 1 and TEST 2 will suggest low test-retest reliability