Re: Being Critical

[Christopher D. Green]

Jean-Marc Perreault wrote: What I want to ask you all is the following: What does one do when there seems to be very contradicting evidence on a topic? (ok, I can already sense Chris Green's steam coming out of his ears... but heck, I need to be able to answer this one, so I'll go ahead anyhow...). No steam. Just light. :-) First, compare the *quality* of the information provided. Who uses good procedures and statistical-analytic techniques? Whose procedures could have realistically resulted in the opposite conclusion? Simply "counting noses" is rarely adequate in these sorts of situations. Quality outwieghs quantity. Second, examine the *sources* of information. Be suspicious of information coming from persons or groups that have a vested (especially financial) interest in the results coming out in a particular way. Attend especially to information that comes from high-prestige *independent* sources (e.g., APA journals, Science, Nature, etc.). Third, keep in mind (though don't take too terribly literally) Popper's dictum that a single refutation shows a theory to be false while hundreds of apparent confirmations may mean nothing at all. On the other hand, also keep in mind that a simple failure to reject the null hypothesis does not count as a refutation. Check the statistical power of failures to reject the null before regarding them as anything but failures to have employed an adequately sensitive experimental procedure. Fourht, be wary of anything about which there are conflicting results among the remaining highly-believable sources. If this is the case, odds are that something hasn't been worked out properly as yet. Best, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3 Canada office: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ . --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]