Friam

credibility by association

Classic

List

Threaded

5 messages Options

Roger Critchlow-2

credibility by association

From Science 12 Aug 2016::

A decade ago, it seemed as though every other neuroscience paper in high-profile journals featured multiple multicolored images of brain scans. In some cases, readers—many of whom were psychologists who had written papers on the same topic—pointed out that the pictographic scans added little explanatory power. Hopkins et al. have extended an earlier study of the relative impact of psychology and neuroscience to encompass both more reductive disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, and less reductive disciplines, such as social science. They find that study subjects judge scientific explanations to be of higher quality when they contain information from the neighboring more reductive field, even when that information is irrelevant.
Cognition 155, 67 (2016).

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: credibility by association

Hi, Roger,

Thanks for this.

Back in the good old days, when I was employed, I interacted a lot with qualitative psychologists and we argued about the probative value of illustrations and anecdotes. Their strong points were that illustrations allowed one to say that at least that happened once and that anecdotes, or stories about individual events of the life of single persons, at least allowed one to see the whole of something, even if for a brief second. Experiments, however, with statistics dissect causes in way that is entirely foreign to reality.

So what is the probative value of a picture of a brain scan?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 9:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] credibility by association

From Science 12 Aug 2016::

A decade ago, it seemed as though every other neuroscience paper in high-profile journals featured multiple multicolored images of brain scans. In some cases, readers—many of whom were psychologists who had written papers on the same topic—pointed out that the pictographic scans added little explanatory power. Hopkins et al. have extended an earlier study of the relative impact of psychology and neuroscience to encompass both more reductive disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, and less reductive disciplines, such as social science. They find that study subjects judge scientific explanations to be of higher quality when they contain information from the neighboring more reductive field, even when that information is irrelevant.
Cognition 155, 67 (2016).

-- rec --

Russ Abbott

Re: credibility by association

Demonstrating that there was at least one time when psychologists thought that illustrations and anecdotes had probative value.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:22 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Roger,

Thanks for this.

Back in the good old days, when I was employed, I interacted a lot with qualitative psychologists and we argued about the probative value of illustrations and anecdotes. Their strong points were that illustrations allowed one to say that at least that happened once and that anecdotes, or stories about individual events of the life of single persons, at least allowed one to see the whole of something, even if for a brief second. Experiments, however, with statistics dissect causes in way that is entirely foreign to reality.

So what is the probative value of a picture of a brain scan?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 9:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] credibility by association

From Science 12 Aug 2016::

A decade ago, it seemed as though every other neuroscience paper in high-profile journals featured multiple multicolored images of brain scans. In some cases, readers—many of whom were psychologists who had written papers on the same topic—pointed out that the pictographic scans added little explanatory power. Hopkins et al. have extended an earlier study of the relative impact of psychology and neuroscience to encompass both more reductive disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, and less reductive disciplines, such as social science. They find that study subjects judge scientific explanations to be of higher quality when they contain information from the neighboring more reductive field, even when that information is irrelevant.
Cognition 155, 67 (2016).

-- rec --
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Barry MacKichan

Re: credibility by association

And that the scanning equipment worked at least once.

--Barry

On 12 Aug 2016, at 22:29, Russ Abbott wrote:

Demonstrating that there was at least one time when psychologists thought
that illustrations and anecdotes had probative value.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:22 PM Nick Thompson [hidden email]
wrote:

Hi, Roger,

Thanks for this.

Back in the good old days, when I was employed, I interacted a lot with
qualitative psychologists and we argued about the probative value of
illustrations and anecdotes. Their strong points were that illustrations
allowed one to say that at least that happened once and that anecdotes, or
stories about individual events of the life of single persons, at least
allowed one to see the whole of something, even if for a brief second.
Experiments, however, with statistics dissect causes in way that is
entirely foreign to reality.

So what is the probative value of a picture of a brain scan?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of *Roger
Critchlow
*Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 9:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] credibility by association

From Science 12 Aug 2016::

A decade ago, it seemed as though every other neuroscience paper in
high-profile journals featured multiple multicolored images of brain scans.
In some cases, readers—many of whom were psychologists who had written
papers on the same topic—pointed out that the pictographic scans added
little explanatory power. Hopkins et al. have extended an earlier study
of the relative impact of psychology and neuroscience to encompass both
more reductive disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, and
less reductive disciplines, such as social science. They find that study
subjects judge scientific explanations to be of higher quality when they
contain information from the neighboring more reductive field, even when
that information is irrelevant.
Cognition 155, 67 (2016).

-- rec --

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: credibility by association

I mentioned this article at (physical) Friam. It's about the place of behaviorism in modern psychology. It's somewhat long so don't read it unless you're interested in that topic:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/behaviorism-at-100/1

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 13, 2016 10:54 AM, "Barry MacKichan" <[hidden email]> wrote:

And that the scanning equipment worked at least once.

--Barry

On 12 Aug 2016, at 22:29, Russ Abbott wrote:

Demonstrating that there was at least one time when psychologists thought
that illustrations and anecdotes had probative value.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:22 PM Nick Thompson [hidden email]
wrote:

Hi, Roger,

Thanks for this.

Back in the good old days, when I was employed, I interacted a lot with
qualitative psychologists and we argued about the probative value of
illustrations and anecdotes. Their strong points were that illustrations
allowed one to say that at least that happened once and that anecdotes, or
stories about individual events of the life of single persons, at least
allowed one to see the whole of something, even if for a brief second.
Experiments, however, with statistics dissect causes in way that is
entirely foreign to reality.

So what is the probative value of a picture of a brain scan?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of *Roger
Critchlow
*Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 9:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] credibility by association

From Science 12 Aug 2016::

A decade ago, it seemed as though every other neuroscience paper in
high-profile journals featured multiple multicolored images of brain scans.
In some cases, readers—many of whom were psychologists who had written
papers on the same topic—pointed out that the pictographic scans added
little explanatory power. Hopkins et al. have extended an earlier study
of the relative impact of psychology and neuroscience to encompass both
more reductive disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, and
less reductive disciplines, such as social science. They find that study
subjects judge scientific explanations to be of higher quality when they
contain information from the neighboring more reductive field, even when
that information is irrelevant.
Cognition 155, 67 (2016).

-- rec --

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com