My Psychology Midterm

[Del]

IS ON MONDAY!

I've only been paying half-attention in class because.... I've been bringing my computer with me to work on Galatea. >.>

EPIC FAIL LMAO!

NEEDLESS TO SAY I MISSED A FEW THINGS!!!

Haha, I just figured you guys are smart, so I would post some of my questions here. I know Turk is a psyc major, and I'm fairly sure sheeeee knows something...

Probably Gabby too.

Okay, here goes!

What does the statement that, in science, theories must be testable, mean?

What I think: Theories must be testable in order to be proven. If a theory is not testable, then it can not be proven or disproven, and is therefore useless.

What is the role of disproval in theories?

Me: Not suuuure! I think it might be that a theory is something that cannot be 100% proven, so people must be able to disprove a theory in order for it be a theory. o.0;;

What are some known problems with disproval?

Me: Not sure. Biases?

Next question is about the attributes of Psychology. It asks for four attributes... Though maybe this is specific to my lecture... Anyway! Are the four answers Determinism, Discoverability, Objectivity, and Data-driven?

Next question: The Knowledge criteria are Replication, Consensus, and Prediction. Replication is being able to replicate the experiment, consensus is coming to agreement with colleagues, and prediction is being able to predict the outcome of the experiment. Is that correct? I feel like I'm wrong, so I want to check.

It also asks about deductive and inductive reasoning.

Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, never true or false. A deductive argument is valid if and only if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises. If the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises must be false. So a valid deductive statement would be: All wines are produced by wineries. Some wines are produced in Napa Valley. Therefore, Some wineries must be in Napa Valley.

Inductive is something based off of probable support which means the conclusion is also probable. Example: Most students on campus took SATs. Some students are in Psychology 1100 (my class number). Therefore, some students in Psychology 1100 took the SATs. This is inductive because not all students have necessarily taken the SATs, and all the students in Psyc 1100 could possibly be the students who haven't. Also, The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth.

Does that sound about right?

It also asks the different between empirical and theoretical articles. And empirical article is one based off/deals with facts, and a theoretical one is based off/deals with theories. Thus, one is about something proven, while the other is conjecture.

Yes? No? Maybe so?

Also, can someone give me a good definition for... and operational definition lol.

There are some more questions I have, but we can save those for after these get answered o.0;;

I appreciate your continued help and support.

[Lily]

I took psychology yeeeeeeeears ago...I DON'T REMEMBER ANY OF THIS HOO-HA.

Sorry, doll. :/

[Del]

Haha, it's fine. I'm sure someone can help. Turk is a psychology major, and Gabby knows everything, so I figure I should be able to get some help.

I'm just now realizing how helpful wikipedia is too lol.

[danime91]

On the first question. You've basically got the main idea. A theory must be testable with valid experiments in a controlled environment with clear results. Anyone can come up with a crackpot idea, its only a theory if data from extensive experimentation supports it. It must also be a replicable experiment, aka other people must be able to do what you did, and if your theory is correct, come up with the same results.

On the second question. The role of disproval in my opinion is not that a theory must be able to be proven incorrect, but to point out flaws or unclear points in the theory. Disproval allows for researchers to see errors in their theory and revise and finetune it.

As for known problems with disproval... well, most I could come up with is random factors interfering in experiments and causing variations in data that may make the theory seem wrong.

No clue about the next two questions.

You pretty much have deductive and inductive reasoning down.

Empirical articles/research deal with facts and observations from performed experiments. Theoretical deals more with lots of mathematical formulas that show that something could work out a particular way, but there is no way to prove it. So an article about the effects of radiation on certain elements would be empirical, while an article talking about how we live in an 11-dimensional universe would be theoretical.

Hope this helped.

[Gabby]

May 1, 2010 15:40:51 GMT -8 Del said:

Haha, it's fine. I'm sure someone can help. Turk is a psychology major, and Gabby knows everything, so I figure I should be able to get some help.

I'm just now realizing how helpful wikipedia is too lol.

I guffawed.

[Del]

Ah, it did help! Thank you, sir!

[Del]

HAHAHAHAHEEEEE.

You are a fountain of knowledge.

And wikipedia is a helpful 'quick n' dirty' for meeeee! D;

[danime91]

Lol. Well, in the end, psychology is the same as any other science. I just took what I knew from physics and biology and aaplied it here. And yes, wikipedia is useful. I use it whenever I forget my trig identities.

[Del]

Yeah, I use wikipedia when ever I don't know much about a subject.

I suppose I shouldn't say that I'm just realizing how helpful it is since I've been using it to find things out for a while. >.>

More like I'm remembering LMAO.

[Del]

Operational Definition: Specifically defining a term, object, or variable in an experiment to eliminate ambiguity or confusion on what is being studied or discussed.

How does that sound?

[turkoizdog]

As much as I hate saying this, danime is completely right.
grumble grumble stole my thunder grumble... again

And most theories cannot be completely disproved. I usually see religion as a good example here, since it's impossible to prove that there is no god, but if a giant fist came out of the sky and said "I exist, bitches!" then you could prove that god exists. Sure there is scientific evidence that goes against the idea of god, but this cannot disprove it completely.

I'm not sure about the four attributes of Psychology, though the four areas of Psychology are Social, Cognitive, Personality, and Developmental. Not sure if that's what you mean...

The Knowledge Criteria feels right, but I haven't taken Research Methods yet, and that class teaches stuff like what you're learning about... I should have been in the class this quarter but I didn't get in. -.-

[Del]

So much to quote in that post, Turk...

SO MUCH.

[Lily]

*sniff*

Turk, that smells like philosophy, there.

[Del]

How does the definition for operational definition sound to you, Turk?

[turkoizdog]

Ack, Lily is right. I kinda forgot the part where in Psychology, you either reject or fail to reject your hypothesis. <<

And Del, it sounds right to me, based on what I know of it... which isn't much... >.<