User:Knowledge0202/sandbox

Background
Psychology is a human science that focuses on "the mind and how it dictates and influences our behavior, from communication and memory to thought and emotion." . Psychology could be seen to have deep roots in Philosophy, however, the main differences between these disciplines are the methods used to obtain an answer/conclusion. Modern Psychology has a more scientific-based approach compared to old Philosophy to collect data and obtain knowledge, similar to the methods used in the natural sciences.

Evidence in Psychology
Within Psychology, both qualitative and quantitative data are used. Qualitative evidence is data that is collected through the observation of phenomenons where obtaining a numerical value is not possible and quantitative evidence is data collected through measurement, numerical values are collected and then analyzed through data processing and statistics. There are 5 main methods within Psychology : 1. Case Study: Individuals are observed over a specific time period.

2. Experiment: There is a controlled, independent, and dependent variable.

3. Observation Study: A form of "qualitative research".

4. Survey: A form of "quantitative research".

5. Content Analysis: observing many forms of "media", using "mathematical data about the words or concepts to study things like stereotyping".

Limitations
Due to the lengthy process of data collection within Psychology, there is generally a small sample size that may lead to hasty generalizations causing possible limitations in the accuracy of data and conclusions. This may be due to the financial pressures that scientists in both the human and natural sciences face, constantly aiming to discover new findings to increase funding. Another phenomenon that is present within Psychology that may hinder the reliability of knowledge is p-hacking "where researchers select the analysis that yields a pleasing result", additionally confirmation bias may also be present- especially in qualitative data. Individuals may view things in a specific way to suit their biases and confirm their predictions. Publication bias is another limitation within Psychology where the accuracy of conclusions is skewered. Within a scientific field, papers that have discovered new phenomenons are most likely to be published, causing scientists to constantly try to discover new phenomenons (to increase funding) instead of repeating past experiments to confirm the accuracy of data.

Introduction to truth in the Natural Sciences
Examples of some disciplines that fall under the natural sciences are: Biology, Chemistry and Physics. A natural science is a science that looks at natural phenomenons such as plants, planets, chemical reactions etc. Those in the natural science field aim to be objective in their conceptions about phenomenon, combining the use of quantitative and qualitative data, utilising data analysis to confirm hypotheses and produce conclusions. This page will show how although scientists aim to be as objective as possible, eliminating biases to get the most accurate conclusion there are still certain phenomena that can hinder the reliability of knowledge (and therefore truth) in the natural sciences and the implications that this entails. This page will also look at the history of truth in the natural sciences, focusing on paradigm shifts in certain disciplines, how these came about and their implications.

Phenomena in the production of truth
Although most scientists aim to be as objective as possible in their views and conclusions when producing truths there are certain phenomena which may occur subconsciously that can skewer how scientists view their data, utilise their data or observe phenomenons. Subsequently, producing false truths within disciplines which may have a knock-on effect.


 * 1) Confirmation Bias: Confirmation bias occurs when scientists tend to focus more on evidence/data that supports their hypothesis and preconceptions, the difficulty with this phenomenon is that once there is data to support one's hypothesis it is even harder to move away from your preconceptions . The implications of this phenomenon is that once this data is published which may be inaccurate, this data is then considered a 'truth' within a field- causing a knock on effect when more truths are produced based on this false truth. A real world example of confirmation bias is the N-ray. 8 years after X-rays were discovered in 1903 it was thought that N-rays had also been discovered, another type of radiation. This radiation meant that cold-fusion was possible which would mean unlimited clean energy- a french scientist called Prosper-René Blondlot claimed that he made the breakthrough discovery of N rays, soon after many researchers from all over the world claimed that they too had seen N- rays but the difficulty with N-rays was that it could only be seen by the human eye making it unquantifiable. However, an American scientist called Robert Wood was skeptical of Blondlot’s claims, he visited Blondlot’s lab himself and removed the crystal that supposedly produced the N- rays, after which Blondlot failed to mention its absence. This is an example of confirmation bias as the N- rays failed to vanish when the source was removed proving that Blondlot along with other French scientists were so passionate on the idea of N- rays that they saw something that wasn’t there, causing them to put out false information into the scientific community . If this truth hadn't been corrected as untrue it would be possible that other scientists could base their experiments on this truth, creating more false conclusions.
 * 2) P-hacking: P- hacking refers to the phenomenon when scientists may subconsciously "manipulate" data, either by inserting data or extracting data so that it suits their hypothesis . The implications of P-hacking is that it may lead to the production of low quality research papers and false truths within the scientific community.
 * 3) Publication Bias: Publication bias is the phenomenon of when more significant scientific findings are published than ones that may be viewed as less significant. The implications of this being that this "bias towards statistically significant results for fields that rely on frequentist statistics: it is possible that the literature in these fields largely consists of false conclusions" . Another implication of this being, since scientists do not get funding from repeating past experiments, it could be seen as potentially 'easy' for false truths within a field to go 'unchecked'.

Paradigm shifts in truths
A paradigm shift is "a situation in which the usual and accepted way of doing or thinking about something changes completely". Paradigm shifts can be useful when looking at the history of truths within the natural sciences and how these changes in conception can lead to more accurate discoveries. An example of a paradigm shift can be seen in Biology with 'cell- theory' when it was once believed that entire organisms were formed from a single unit of cellular tissue (not multiple) or that there is spontaneous generation of cells (not that cells come from the division of other cells). All of these discoveries where made possible with the invention of the microscope in 1665 by Robert Hooke, the implications of this being that more breakthroughs within modern biology were made possible with this truth (cell theory).

Interpretation of 'Power' in Psychology
Within Psychology, 'power' could be defined as "one’s capacity to alter another person’s condition or state of mind by providing or withholding resources—such as food, money, knowledge, and affection—or administering punishments, such as physical harm, job termination, or social ostracism." This definition is utilised when describing how humans interact with one another (how one individual may have the power to influence/affect another individual), '"relationships, contexts and cultures."

An example of power within psychology is when the topic of domestic, psychological or physical abuse is analysed, where this abuse may be due to an unequal distribution of power within a relationship.

Power structures within Psychology
This section will describe the possible inequalities within this discipline as well as how the knowledge within this discipline may have the power to affect others producing certain implications.

Gender inequality within Psychology
A report from the "Committee on Women in Psychology (CWP)" illustrated how although women outnumber men within Psychology (when looking at the figures of women that are working in the field or associated with education), women are still trying to gain "equity" in "money, status and power" when comparing to their "male colleagues". It has also been found that there is a significant wage gap between men and women within Psychology. As women enter the workforce they experience greater debt as well as lower salaries compared to males entering the industry. Data from the 'National Science Foundation' in 2010 found that women experience an average $20,000 pay gap in starting salaries. Additonally, a common phenomenon that could be witnessed within this discipline is that it may take women a much greater time to "achieve tenure than men" and although women outnumber men "women are still underrepresented as associate professors, full professors and institutional leaders".

Diversity in the Psychology workforce
The 'American Psychological Association' found that in 2015, 86% of the workforce in psychology was white, "5% Asian, 5% Hispanic, 4% black/African American and 1% were multiracial" or from various other ethnic groups; demonstrating how the psychology workforce may lack diversity. However, it has been found that the workforce is becoming more and more diverse "as more racial/ethnic minorities enter the workforce" and that 34% of "early career psychologists" came from "racial/ethnic minorities".

Knowledge as power in Psychology
It could be argued that since most Psychological experiments are held within west, only a particular small and unrepresentative sample of individuals are being studied. This could be due to financial pressures within the industry where conducting psychological experiments within other parts of the world are too costly. However, the implications of this is that when these conclusions (from experiments of a specific group of people) are used in other parts of the world they may produce adverse side effects where the knowledge that is used may do more harm than good as other aspects such as culture may be ignored.

WEIRD (wealthy, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic) people are the most often the individuals in which psychology experiments are carried out. This means that only a small and unrepresentative sample is obtained by scientists and in order to get their work published, researchers may be forced to generalise and universalise. In Rwanda, post- genocide or in Sri Lanka post- tsunami where sufferers had what was labelled as PTSD were forced into one on one therapy sessions instead of handling their grief within their community- this is an example of imposing western coping strategies that may have worked on WEIRD people living in an individualistic society onto theirs, when their ways of coping were based on the union of the community they were within. The implications of this being that "without cultural understanding" western clinical treatment can do "more harm than good". Knowledge can be seen as a form of power as it has been used to "alter" one's "condition or state of mind".

Economics is the study of how 'individuals, businesses [and] governments...make choices about how to allocate resources' based on the assumption that all individuals act rationally. To gather evidence in the form of empirical results, the discipline applies statistical methods to economic theory and models, in a branch of economics known as 'econometrics'. Qualitative evidence is infrequently used within the discipline.

One of the main assumptions within economics is that firms want to 'maximise profit'. Accordingly, many digital technology companies, from 'Big Tech' to online blogs, use advertising revenue models as their largest source of revenue is from advertising. Quantitative evidence is collected on both ends of the advertising model: from the platform and from the advertiser, in order to optimise key performance indicators - that is, to maximise engagement and to achieve the most effective customer response to an advert. Similarly, beneficiaries of fake news include both the people that have adverts on websites containing fake news and the creators of the fake news. Fake news generates more attention than most news stories due to the strong reactions that it can produce, such as 'surprise, fear and disgust'. Hence, according to the assumptions of economics, there is an incentive for websites and individuals to spread fake news in order to direct traffic, and therefore revenue, towards their website or publishing platform. For example, the 'cost per click' advertising model illustrates how, if a fake news post is 'clicked' on, the publisher or owner of the website will receive revenue, demonstrating how the advertising ecosystem benefits from the propagation of fake news.