Many of Jim's earlier posts have been designed to publicize some lesser known findings in line with his beliefs that he thought people might overlook due to their own biases and sometimes that seems like bomb-throwing (especially without further rational discourse about the research and its methodology). However, that was not the context in which this one was delivered. So the question becomes, "is his stated justification for this post, which Stephen characterized as 'lame and unconvincing', actually a pedagogically satisfying justification?". I can say that at least I have benefited from Jim's mention of this post (and the subsequent follow up link of David (?) to the original study) and I have used it profitably already (and list members comments about its possible methodological flaws) in my graduate research course and I expect to use it next year in the undergraduate course.
One of our most obvious cognitive biases as human beings is the confirmation bias that allows us to seek out info that confirms our pre-existing beliefs and ignore or denigrate evidence that disconfirms those beliefs. I think a direct corollary of this bias is the desire to find methodological flaws with research with which we disagree and see only the positive aspects of research findings we support. If we teach students to find methodological flaws without addressing this bias, we are not enhancing critical thinking; we are only providing students with methodological ammunition to use selectively against research that disconfirms their biases. BTW, I like to use both secondary and primary sources to test critical thinking in these areas because, in real-life, media accounts are likely to be a major source of information about research. Most of the hypotheses about methodological flaws of the abortion study could have been extracted from the secondary source itself and I want to teach my students to respond critically to reports they read in the media. I teach at an interdenominational Christian college where anti-abortion sentiment (according to surveys conducted by my colleagues in political science) is much higher than at other colleges. If I want students to stretch themselves to think critically, I give them an example of research with belief-congruent results containing some methodological flaws in order to educate them in looking for methodological problems equally in both belief-congruent and belief-incongruent research. Evidently, the author of this abortion study, as a pro-choice atheist, has learned the lesson that presenting empirical findings as they are trumps presenting them as we wish they would be. It is kind of sad that, as a scientist, he has to present any worldview credentials at all to validate his results but that is where we are in science and politics today. If I were to use abortion as the topic of a research methodology exercise at another college, I would try to find one that confirmed the pre-existing beliefs of the majority of students at that college so that I could make the point that, in science, empirical results and proper methodology trumps desired outcomes. My bottom line is that it hardly matters to me what Jim's original motivation was in sending this to the list. It (and the follow-up primary source link and subsequent comments) has given me an excellent example of just the kind of research I want to use to stretch my students' critical thinking abilities. And I thank everyone on the list who took the time to find the flaws. I am trying to achieve the goal in myself and with my students of being as critical of things to which I am positively disposed as I am of things to which I am negatively disposed. Rick Dr. Rick Froman Associate Professor of Psychology John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (479) 524-7295 http://www.jbu.edu/academics/sbs/faculty/rfroman.asp --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
