1. Lesson #3
Objective(s): Identify the key features of scientific skepticism. Identify and explain the text’s six principles of scientific thinking.
Agenda: Bellwork, Scientific Thinking: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction
Bellwork:
In what instances do you blindly accept information or direction?
After giving students a chance to answer bellwork questions, discuss. All statements are false! Are you surprised? Where do you recall learning about these myths you thought were true? Why do you think many of these myths persist despite evidence to the contrary?

2. Scientific Thinking: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction
Chapter 1, Section 3
Scientific Thinking: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction

3. Scientific Skepticism
Scientific skepticism is the approach of evaluating all claims with an open mind but insisting on persuasive evidence before accepting them.
-willingness to keep an open mind to all claims
-accept claims only after researchers have subjected them to careful scientific tests.(unwillingness to accept claims on authority alone)

4. A Basic Framework for Scientific Thinking
A hallmark of scientific skepticism is critical thinking, or evaluating claims in an open-minded and careful fashion.
There are six principals of scientific thinking:
-Ruling Out Rival Hypotheses
-Correlation vs Causation
-Falsifiability
-Replicability
-Extraordinary Claims
-Occam’s Razor

5. Six Principals of Scientific Thinking
Ruling Out Rival Hypothesis
-Have we ruled out other plausible explanations?
Correlation Isn’t Causation
-A correlation between two things doesn’t demonstrate a connection between them.
Falsifiability
-When evaluating a claim we should ask ourselves if it could be disprove it or if it is consistent with any evidence.
-Capable of being disproven.
Thought field therapy works better than nothing because you are asked to confront your anxieties.
Correlation-causation fallacy states that just because two variables are correlated does not mean that one causes the other. Teen who listen to music with sexual lyrics have more sex vs teens of have more sex also listen to music with sexual lyrics. What about the third variable of implusivity which causes teens to listen to music with sexual content and engage in sex.
A theory that explains everything, explains nothing. For a theory to be meaningful it could be proven wrong if there was compelling evidence.
The more we are able to replicate findings using different participants in different settings, the more confidence we can be about those findings. .

6. Six Principals of Scientific Thinking
Replicability
-We should ask ourselves if the evidence can be replicated.
-Decline effect-size of findings shrink overtime.
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
-Does the claim counter things we know, and is the evidence as extraordinary as the claim?
Occam’s Razor
-We should generally select to more logical and simple explanation.
Thought field therapy works better than nothing because you are asked to confront your anxieties.
Correlation-causation fallacy states that just because two variables are correlated does not mean that one causes the other. Teen who listen to music with sexual lyrics have more sex vs teens of have more sex also listen to music with sexual lyrics. What about the third variable of implusivity which causes teens to listen to music with sexual content and engage in sex.
A theory that explains everything, explains nothing. For a theory to be meaningful it could be proven wrong if there was compelling evidence.
The more we are able to replicate findings using different participants in different settings, the more confidence we can be about those findings.
.----
Keep It Simple Stupid