Learn Before
Case Study

Based on the principle of falsifiability, diagnose whether the researcher's theory is scientific or pseudoscientific, and justify your decision by explaining how the researcher's handling of contradictory observations affects the ability to test the claim.

Case context: A psychological researcher proposes the 'Subconscious Shield Effect' theory, which states that all humans possess a subconscious mechanism that completely shields them from experiencing emotional distress. To test this, the researcher exposes participants to high-stress scenarios in a lab. If a participant shows no physiological stress, the researcher claims this supports the theory. If a participant does show elevated stress, the researcher explains that their Subconscious Shield was temporarily 'dormant' and could not be detected. The researcher argues that the theory remains valid in all cases because the shield is always present, even if it cannot be measured during stress spikes.

Question: Based on the principle of falsifiability, diagnose whether the researcher's theory is scientific or pseudoscientific, and justify your decision by explaining how the researcher's handling of contradictory observations affects the ability to test the claim.

Sample answer: The theory is pseudoscientific. According to Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability, a scientific claim must be expressed in a way that allows for potential observations that would count as evidence against it. By explaining away the contradictory evidence (the elevated stress levels) as a 'dormant' shield, the researcher ensures that no possible empirical observation can disprove the theory. Because the claim cannot be tested and potentially proven wrong by systematic observation, it does not address an empirical question.

Key points:

  • The researcher's theory is pseudoscientific because it is unfalsifiable.
  • A scientific claim must allow for potential observations that would count as evidence against it.
  • Explaining away elevated stress as a 'dormant' state makes the theory impossible to disprove.
  • Because the claim cannot be tested and potentially proven wrong by systematic observation, it does not address an empirical question.

Rubric: Full credit: The learner correctly diagnoses the theory as pseudoscientific, explains that scientific claims must allow for potential observations to count as evidence against them, and justifies the diagnosis by explaining that the researcher's tendency to explain away contradictory stress data prevents the theory from ever being disproven. Partial credit: The learner identifies that the theory is untestable or pseudoscientific but does not explain how the researcher's handling of contradictory evidence prevents systematic falsification.

0

1

Updated 2026-05-27

Contributors are:

Who are from:

Tags

KPU

Research Methods in Psychology - 4th American Edition @ KPU

Related