4 ms·
What is up with the questions used in the pretest? From the article: > Which of the following is true of scientific explanations? > a. They are less likely to
by j2kun 12y ago
What is up with the questions used in the pretest? From the article:
> Which of the following is true of scientific explanations?
> a. They are less likely to be verified by empirical observation than other types of explanations.
> b. They are accepted because they come from a trusted source or authority figure.
> c. They are accepted only provisionally.
> d. In the face of evidence that is inconsistent with a scientific explanation, the evidence will be questioned.
> e. All of the above are true about scientific explanations.
If I were taking this pretest, it would be accompanied by the realization that most of my work in the class would be dealing with a mountain of oversimplifications and generalizations. So maybe the goal of the pretest is to inhibit my critical thinking to the point where I just think the way the professor expects and try to maximize my chance of filling in the right bubble.
A better question might be something describing historical evidence rather than forcing the respondent to make a claim about truth. Like: according to the research of [researcher and colleagues], 80% of survey respondents said their primary reason for accepting a scientific explanation was...
These would be much better at providing cues for the student later on, since they now have a name and a number to attach to the claim being made.
- igravious 12y agoJudging from the questions these are probably first year college students. What the question is trying to elucidate here is if the student has a working conception of how scientific explanations work. I'm not sure how you are getting from there to "a mountain of oversimplifications and generalizations". I know from personal experience tutoring first year students that they can have a very (and I mean very) shaky grasp of what it even means for something to be scientific rather than unscientific. This groundwork has to be in place before students can proceed to digest any science, in this case psychology no doubt. If anything knowing about the ways in which our beliefs can be (rightly or wrongly) formed will only aid critical thinking. I think the question is an OK question and that the question you would replace it with obscures what the student needs to learn about. In fact, if you don't mind me saying, I think your replacement question quite odd.
- j2kun 12y agoMy problem is that the question is entirely unscientific. There are reasonable interpretations and arguments for both sides of every potential answer. This is why basing a question on actual facts (such as, what was this particular scientist's argument, or what was found in that study) is a better idea.
- igravious 12y agoNot everything can be covered by science. Not everything that is not covered by science is bad. Some of the things that are not covered by science are bad: these include pseudo-scientific beliefs like astrology, religious belief, and so on. The question here is to do with knowledge and scientific explanation. This is the subject matter of epistemology (the study of knowledge in and of itself) and philosophy of science (how something gets to be scientific in the first place). You are right that it is entirely unscientific but you are wrong that think that as a result it should be rejected. Not everything that is unscientific should be rejected, this is one instance of that. You need to learn the distinction between science and philosophy of science.
- j2kun 12y agoIs this not a scientific analysis of a science-based course (psychology)? How could unscientific things be good in this context?