Question

Dr. Therapy treated 32 patients with depression with his new counseling technique. After one month, he found they had all improved so he concludes that his new technique is effective. In failing to consider other explanations for their improvement, Dr Therapy has violated which of the six principles of scientific thinking? Select one: a. Falsifiability b. Occam's razor c. Ruling out rival hypotheses d. Replicability

Answer 1

Dr. Therapy violated the rule of 'Ruling out rival hypotheses'. He did not consider other factors that may have led to his patients' improvement in mental health, only attributing their progress to his new counseling technique. Scientific thinking involves considering all potential contributing factors.

Step-by-step explanation:

Dr. Therapy, in not considering other potential factors that caused his patients' improvement, has violated the principle of Ruling out rival hypotheses in scientific thinking. While his new counseling technique may indeed be responsible for his patients' progress, there could also be other factors at play.

Correlation does not equal causation, meaning just because the treatment occurred at the same time as the improvement, it doesn't necessarily mean the treatment caused the improvement. Other factors to consider could include the possibility of a placebo effect, lifestyle changes made by the patients, or even changes in their environment.

It's crucial to recognize that while his patients improved, this does not confirm his technique as effective without further controlled studies. Alternative explanations should always be considered in scientific analysis to avoid assumption bias.

Learn more about Ruling out rival hypotheses