Study Guide for Natural Sciences 4H, Fall 2003, Final Examination (Zellmer)

Comprehensive: Chapters 1 through 5 of Moore. New material since HE2 is on the remainder of Hypothetical Reasoning and on Causality, including Chapter 5 of Moore and the philosophical and other information in the Causality material. Presentations: Homeopathy, Chiropractic, NDE, ESP, Poltergeists, Creationism, Astrology, UFOs, and the Bermuda Triangle. Also: Amelie, Bowling for Columbine, and Baloney Detection Kits. Assigned Readings from Weird Things and Hines are also included, as well as material from the Special Honors Assignments.

Directions:

This exam is all Multiple Choice. Please record your responses on your Scantron 882 form. There is only one correct response to each multiple choice question. Of the 40 questions, you will be scored on 36, so you can miss four questions and still get a perfect 200 points (but not more than 200).

Information: A list of the Informal Fallacies and some related critical tools and concepts introduced in this course:

Formal Arguments: The Issue, The Premises, the Conclusion.
Opinions, claims, and evidence.
Begging the Question (tautology)
False Dilemma
Equivocation (2 word meanings)
Composition (parts --> whole)
Division (whole --> parts)
Genetic Fallacy
Hasty Generalization
Faulty Analogy
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to the Masses
Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Ignorance (Appeal to Lack of Evidence)
Appeal to Invincible Ignorance
Appeal to Baloney (pseudoscientific jargon, AKA "the Snow Job")
Appeal to Fear
Appeal to the Person (ad hominem)
Fallacy of False Cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
Confirmational Bias (cherry picking)
Subjective Validation
Reconstructed Memories
Burden of Proof
Inductive & Deductive
Argument by Analogy
reductio ad absurdum

Universal Generalizations
Statistical Generalizations
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization (in space or in time)
Fallacy of Assumed Linearity
Appeal to Innumeracy
Fallacy of Biased Sample
Fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence
Fallacy of Specificity (Too Exact to Be True)
Shooting Yourself in the Foot
Fallacy of Confirming Evidence (Includes Cherry Picking and Subjective Validation)
Superstition
Fallacy of Label Slapping
Observations, Questions, and Multiple Hypotheses
"Why is That?": the Good Question
Rules of Inference (p's and q's)
Troubleshooting Trees and Strong Inference
Modus Tollens and Disconfirmation
Criteria of Adequacy: Testability, Fruitfulness, Scope, Simplicity, and Conservatism
"if and only if"; "Necessary and Sufficient"
Null Hypothesis - the true story

Experimental Group, Control Group, Double Blind, Significance Testing.
Meta Studies (studies of studies)
Strong and Weak Evidence
Statistical Null Hypothesis Dis-confirmation, including DNA
Aristotelian Determinism
Causation: Hume, Mill and Sartre
Single Cause (A causes B)
Multiple Cause (A1, A2, ... cause B)
Statistical inference of causation
Mechanistic explanation of causation
Legal assignment of causation
Mill's Methods: Agreement, Difference, and Concomitant Variation.
Fallacies of False Cause:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy,
Coincidence Fallacy,
Common Cause Fallacy,
Backwards (Chaotic) Fallacy.
False Patterns in Random (or Vague) Data
Correlation does not prove Causation
Chaotic Systems, Strange Attractors

Causation and Hypothesis Testing in the Real World
Baloney Detection Revisited

The Final Exam is Monday, December 15, 2003, 8:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. in our usual room, FFS 209. It can get foggy this time of year, so leave enough time to get here if you have to drive from anywhere.

The exam opens with a mixture of questions about Causality and Hypothesis Testing. Check out the philosophers who provided our views of causality too. There will also be appearances by more modern figures, such as Amelie and Michael Moore.

If you look at some of the unused slides from my Causality lectures, you will find some data on the SUV question we raised at the start of the semester. Some of the Real Data found there will be used for some Hypothesis Testing. If you want a preview of the data before seeing some of it on the exam, take a look. We will work causality into some of this as well. Don’t forget the Three Definitions of Causality that I presented, as will as those provided by Dr. Moore, and mind your P’s, Q’s, and M’s.

We didn’t spend a lot of time doing the calculations involved with the Coincidence Fallacy, but the one we did do is enough to give you the flavor of the mathematical underpinnings of coincidence. I’ll be asking about the consequences of this process. (No, you won’t have to calculate anything!)

We have quite a list of Critical Thinking tools, and Informal Fallacies. I will be working definitions and proper use of these into several of the questions. In case you are comparing this list to that of a year ago, the main difference is that we did a lot with Experimental Design last year, that we only partially used this year. Some specific terms related to that have been taken off this year’s list, but concepts such as double blind studies, and finding “significant differences” were used a lot in our study of hypothesis testing. Dr. Moore’s book does use some additional terms, e.g. prospective and retrospective studies, but this semester we had a little different emphasis. Do look over our discussion of DNA analysis, though, since this was a big emphasis this semester on how scientists make decisions based on experimental measurements.

We will be returning to the beginning of the semester on Asking Good Questions, and analyzing arguments by converting them to Standard Form. We will also be using the Method of Lists from Argument by Analogy as well as other concepts from that chapter.

Be familiar with the concepts and methods put forth in our Presentations. Expect appearances from Psychics, Spiritualists, Chiropractors, Homeopathy salesmen, Creationists, PK, Bigfoot, Space Aliens, the Residents of Flatland, Aristotle, Mill, Hume, Sartre and all the other cast of characters we examined this semester. Be familiar with methods such as use of testimonials, cold reading, and the ever-popular Appeal to Baloney. I’ll make frequent reference to Balony Detection Kits too, mainly from those we studied in class, e.g SEARCH. Do go over Dr. Hall’s BDK too, even though we didn’t get a chance to go over it in class. It all should look familiar to you.

I will assail you with a bit of Inductive and Deductive reasoning, complete with p’s and q’s and may attempt to use Modus Tollens and maybe the Null Hypothesis to determine once and for all if there is a Santa Claus. Know the underlying assumptions of the Inductive Method, and how these are used and misused.

Although the exam is all multiple choice, it is seventeen pages long! Be prepared to do a lot of reading, and looking for essential distinctions in the material presented. I tried quite hard not to be obscure and picky, but opinions may differ on that. Remember that you can blow four questions and still get a perfect score. That should cover any honest differences of opinion, should there be any.