Science and G.O.L.F

Science and G.O.L.F

This is a paper I wrote in college with regards to the theory of knowledge. It can explain the advantages of using science as the basis of golf instruction if you read with that in mind.

If there is an interest, I will do an application article solely for golf.

I give a distilled "lecture" of this when a student sees me for the first time. If you can change their minds, their actions will follow.

Thoughts become words, words become deeds, deeds become habits, habits become character and character, destiny.

Our destiny - to be and teach others become Golfing Machines.

Epistemology

Epistemology is the philosophical theory of knowledge or how we come to know things. Social psychology is scientific because it uses the scientific method of enquiry to study phenomena. There are other types of epistemologies; superstition, intuition, authority based and the rational-inductive method.

Superstitions are based on the subjective belief of magic and chance and are irrational beliefs that stem from ignorance or fear. They are anything but super; they disregard the laws of nature. Consider the notion of the number 13 being unlucky. On where do we base this belief on? Most of the time, they are simply passed on via transmission of cultures by socialization.

Intuition is the direct knowledge or awareness of something that we acquire without conscious attention or reasoning. Much like superstitions, it is an entirely subjective experience. While few decisions are based on superstitions, intuition has at times guided many of us into making snap decisions that proved to be correct.

Authority is a more universally accepted approach to the learning process. Here, information is learnt from the reports or teachings of a credible trustworthy source. We tend to believe more in a person who is credible than one who is not. In school, we learn from professors, read the textbooks they authored and rarely question their credibility.

Up to this point, keep in mind that we have not broached the issue of validity - how correct something is.

Authority can stem from two sources, one from ascription and the other from expertise. A policeman is an example of the former while a judge is of the latter. It is obvious that a person with ascribed authority may not be able to provide a valid answer to certain issues; a policeman will be without reply when asked about the workings of the judiciary system.

The method of authority is certainly a more rational approach to learning than are the methods afore-mentioned, but it is not without its flaws.

Our perception of authority may be tainted by personal feelings; I may believe what is told to me by an authority figure because I like him.

Thus I unquestioningly accept whatever is shoved down my ear and do not question the source of the authority’s information.

Perhaps, one of the most highly regarded methods of acquiring knowledge is the rational inductive argument. This is the primary method of acquiring knowledge in non scientific academic disciplines, such as history, philosophy, and literature.

After studying the text of an author’s works and the historical context in which they are written, a scholar draws some general conclusions about that author. A rational inductive argument may be well conceived and based on verifiable facts and be objective.

The process of arguing however is susceptible to subjectivity and bias. If I argue that a particular notion that is being forwarded is nonsense because I do not like the scientist, I am basing my argument on subjectivity, on my own personal feelings.

History is an area in which the scientific method of enquiry is not helpful. In “Evidence that Demands a Verdict,” Josh McDowell teaches: that scientific proof is based on showing that something is a fact by repeating the event in the presence of enquirers. There is a controlled environment where observations can be made, data drawn and hypotheses empirically verified.

The scientific method, however defined, is related to measurement of phenomena and experimentation and repeated observation. Dr. James Conant of Harvard writes that

“science is an interconnected series of concepts and conceptual schemes that have developed as a result of experimentation and observation, and are fruitful of further experimentation and observations”

Testing the truth of a hypothesis by way of controlled experiments is one of the key techniques of modern scientific method.

But if the scientific method is the only method of proving something, then I could not prove that I attended psychology class on Monday morning. There is no way you can repeat those events in a controlled environment.

Here is what is called legal-historical proof, based on showing something is fact beyond doubt. A verdict is reached on the basis of weight of evidence – 3 types of testimony – oral, written and exhibits. Using this method I can pretty well argue my presence in class via the proof of the registry, notes, professor and classmates etc.

The scientific method can only be used to prove repeatable things; it cannot prove or disprove persons in history events. It cannot answer if Napoleon lived or not. This is out of the realm of science and must be put into the realm of legal-historical proof.

In other words, the scientific method based on observation, data collection, hypothesizing, deducing and experimental verification to find and explain empirical regularities in nature, does not have final answers to questions as posed above. Absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence.

I purposefully included this to dispel any misconceptions one may have any the concept of science. Ask the everyman on the streets what is science and he will likely tell you, chemistry, biology and physics.

A thousand times no, science is a method and not so much a discipline/subject like biology and physics as many mistakenly believe. This is the reason why we make a distinction between the natural and social sciences of which economics, anthropology come within its ambit. Hopefully this will help clarify any misconceptions people hold about science and come to an understanding of why we can call social psychology a science.

Characteristics of Science

First, science is empirical, which means it is based on observation. Scientists must be able to demonstrate that what they claim to be true can actually be observed in reality. Commonsense reasoning and traditional or intuitive knowledge cannot take the place of this observation.

Second, science is systematic; it follows methodical and generally accepted procedures. Consequently, scientific research is always open to critical review and assessment by other scientists in order to determine whether errors or biases have influenced the conclusions.

As part of this assessment, scientific investigations are often repeated, a process scientists term as replication. Replication helps prevent unreliable or selective interpretations by determining whether other scientists reach the same conclusions using similar procedures. Replication provides further verification for scientific findings.

Third, science focuses on causation. Scientists assume that all events are caused or determined by something else. A major feature of scientific research is the search for these causes. For 2 or more phenomena to be causally related there must be an association between them.

For example when water is heated to 100˚c at an air pressure of one atmosphere, it will change from a liquid to a gas. As far as we know, there are no exceptions to this association. In other cases, the association between 2 or more phenomena is probabilistic.

This means that the occurrence of one event increases the likelihood or probability, that the other will occur, but the relationship does not necessarily occur in every case. Most associations involving social phenomena are probabilistic.

Fourth, science is provisional. The results of scientific investigations are considered tentative and always open to questioning and repudiation. There are no ultimate, sacred or unchangeable truths in science.

Finally, science is objective. Scientists strive to prevent their personal values from affecting their investigations. This impersonality does not mean that scientists have no values or emotional passions. Many are intensely concerned about social issues such as crime, divorce, environmental pollution, nuclear power, strategic arms control, equal rights and interpersonal relationships.

At the same time, scientists realize that personal values can, and probably will bias their findings. They have therefore introduced checks such as replication and provisionality to guard against the influence of personal bias on the body of scientific knowledge.

Science is not foolproof, but it is the most effective means of acquiring systematic, verifiable knowledge about the world. Science of course has its limitations, and it is crucial to understand which issues it cannot resolve.

Science is the preferred source of knowledge on issues that can be resolved through observation. Some issues are not amenable to such resolution.

For example, science cannot tell us which personal values are right or preferable because these are again matters of personal judgment. Some of us may prefer to eat our sandwich before drinking our latte, others may do it the other way around.

Science may show us how to live up to our values or the consequences of following particular values, but it cannot tell us which values to live by. This choice may be best served by religious teachings or traditional knowledge.

Role of theory

Where does theory fit in at this juncture? Theories are a set of statements that explains the relationship among phenomena. We use theories frequently in everyday life, for example, law enforcement officers investigating crimes.

In homicide cases, the first people contacted by detectives in general are relatives, friends and acquaintances of the victim. Behind such investigative procedures is the theory that most homicides are committed by the people who are socially close to the victim.

When we open doors as well, we are acting on the theory that the twisting of the door knob in a clockwise fashion will undo the latch that holds the door shut. This is just but one of many examples of the use of theory in our lives.

In like manner, in social psychological research we also have theories to explain the relationship between social phenomena. For example, the theory of residential propinquity states that people who have functional proximity in daily living are more likely than not to have close relationships.

The concept functional proximity is the independent or causal variable while the concept of close relationships is the dependent variable or effect.

If you don’t have a theory, what do you know to research in proving or disproving theory? The basis of research therefore is theory – every research topic is theory based.

Theories are not worth much, unless they are tested, and so the ultimate goal of research is to test theories. This testing allows social psychologists to assess whether a theory offers a good explanation of human behavior.

Theories can only be evaluated on the basis of valid research – research that is trustworthy because the researcher has taken pains to exclude bias and error. How can researchers be sure their research is valid and can provide evidence for and against theories? It turns out that valid research is guided by the properties of theories.

Theories:
1. are about constructs
2. describe causal relations
3. general in scope

Because theories deal with constructs – abstract concepts – researchers have to be sure that the specific observations they make in their studies are in fact relevant to those constructs. I.e. researchers studying how social comparisons affect cancer patients’ adjustments to their illness must have some way to accurately measure the patients’ adjustment to ensure construct validity.

Theories describe causal relations, thus researchers must be sure that they know the causes of any changes in behavior they find in their studies. Research must allow the conclusion that the cancer patients’ successful adjustment is due to the social comparisons they make, rather than to some extraneous cause. This is commonly known as internal validity or experimental realism, where it can be concluded accurately that it is indeed the independent variable that brought about a change in the dependent variable.

As theories are also general in scope, researchers have to be sure that they have learned something about how people in general, not just a few individuals think, feel and act. Conclusions about social comparisons on patients’ adjustment would be most valuable if they held for those with other types of terminal diseases as well as home stay patients. In such a situation, we say that the study has external validity or mundane realism.

Research that meets these three criteria, we say has construct, internal and external validity. All three of these criteria are essential links in the logical chain by which research supports theory.

Although decisions about every aspect of research may have implications for all 3 forms of validity, construct validity has the most to do with how constructs are measured, internal validity to do with the design of a study and external validity with the populations and settings used in the research.