Reasons for validating scientific reasoning
It may be (unless you meditate in a group which many do!
) but it actually increases your sense of connection to others: 8 - Increases social connection & emotional intelligence (see here and - by yours truly - here) 9 - Makes you more compassionate (see here and here and here) 10 - Makes you feel less lonely (see here) It Boosts Your Self-Control 11 - Improves your ability to regulate your emotions (see here) () 12 - Improves your ability to introspect (see here & for why this is crucial see this post) It Changes Your BRAIN (for the better) 13 - Increases grey matter (see here) 14 - Increases volume in areas related to emotion regulation, positive emotions & self-control (see here and here) 15 - Increases cortical thickness in areas related to paying attention (see here) It Improves Your Productivity ( 16 - Increases your focus & attention (see here and here and here and here) 17 - Improves your ability to multitask (see here) 18 - Improves your memory (see here) 19 - Improves your ability to be creative & think outside the box (see research by J. It Makes You WISE(R) It gives you perspective: By observing your mind, you realize you don't have to be slave to it.
The choice for a particular type of validation is yours.
You could, for instance, determine discriminant validity by comparing performance across different age groups or establish concurrent validity by examining a child’s performance on the three parallell versions of the test (that each have a different topic).
Sarewitz also notes that decades of nutritional dogma about the alleged health dangers of salt, fats, and red meat appears to be wrong. National Institute of Statistical Sciences has estimated that only 5 to 10 percent of those observational studies can be replicated.
And then there is the huge problem of epidemiology, which manufactures false positives by the hundreds of thousands. "Within a culture that pressures scientists to produce rather than discover, the outcome is a biased and impoverished science in which most published results are either unconfirmed genuine discoveries or unchallenged fallacies," four British neuroscientists bleakly concluded in a 2014 editorial for the journal .
To learn more about how science really works and to see a more accurate representation of this process, visit The real process of science.
In subsequent years, children are gradually familiarized with the practice of good science, which usually involves creating experiments that allow for valid causal inferences.Scientists often seem tentative about their explanations because they are aware that those explanations could change if new evidence or perspectives come to light.When scientists write about their ideas in journal articles, they are expected to carefully analyze the evidence for and against their ideas and to be explicit about alternative explanations for what they are observing.But the one place I did have a say over was my mind, through meditation.
When I started meditating, I did not realize it would also make me healthier, happier, and more successful.Because they are trained to do this for their scientific writing, scientist often do the same thing when talking to the press or a broader audience about their ideas.Unfortunately, this means that they are sometimes misinterpreted as being wishy-washy or unsure of their ideas.In 2015, only about a third of 100 psychological studies published in three leading psychology journals could be adequately replicated.