Experimental design heuristics for scientific discovery: the use of 'baseline' and 'known standard' controls

International Journal of Human Computer Studies

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 335-349

  Baker, Lisa M ^a   Dunbar, Kevin ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXPERT SYSTEMS; HEURISTIC METHODS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; NATURAL SCIENCES COMPUTING; PSYCHOLOGY COMPUTING;

BASELINE CONTROL CONDITION; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN HEURISTICS; KNOWN STANDARD CONTROL CONDITION; SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0034270648     PISSN: 10715819     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/ijhc.2000.0393     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. BAKEMAN R., GOTTMAN J. Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. 1986;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2. BAKER, L. M. 1994, How scientists reason: The use of unexpected findings, McGill University, Montreal.
3. BAKER, L. M. DUNBAR, K. 2000, The laboratory course is not enough: teaching experimental design to science undergraduates (submitted for publication).
4. BAKER L. M., DUNBAR K. Constraints on the experimental design process in real-world science. COTTRELL G. W. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 1996;154-159 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
5. BRUTLAG D. L. Genomics and computational molecular biology. Current Opinion in Microbiology. 1:1998;340-345.
6. DARDEN L. Recent work in computational scientific discovery. SHAFTO M. G., LANGLEY P. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 1997;161-166 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
7. DUNBAR K. How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. STERNBERG R. J., DAVIDSON J. E. The Nature of Insight. 1995;365-395 MIT Press, Cambridge.
8. DUNBAR K. How scientists think: online creativity and conceptual change in science. WARD T. B., SMITH S. M., VAID J. Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes. 1997;461-493 American Psychological Association Press, Washington.
9. DUNBAR, K. 1999, Beyond the myth of the unexpected: Are scientists the victims of chance?
10. DUNBAR K. The analogical paradox: why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings, yet so difficult in the psychology laboratory. GENTNER D., HOLYOAK K. J., KOKINOV B. The analogical mind: Theory and phenomena. 1999;MIT Press, Cambridge.
11. DUNBAR K. The scientist in vivo: how scientists think and reason in the laboratory. MAGNANI L., NERSESSIAN N. J., THAGARD P. Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. 1999;Kluwer Academic Plenum Press, New York.
12. FRIEDLAND P. E., IWASAKI Y. The concept and implementation of skeletal plans. Journal of Automated Reasoning. 1:1985;161-208.
13. GIBBINGS J. C. The Systematic Experiment: A Guide for Engineers and Industrial Scientists. 1986;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. GORMAN M. E. How the possibility of error affects falsification on a task that models scientific problem solving. British Journal of Psychology. 77:1986;85-96.
15. GORMAN M. E. Error, falsification and scientific inference: an experimental investigation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 41A:1989;385-412.
16. GRINNELL F. The Scientific Attitude. 1992;Guilford Press, New York.
17. KAHNEMAN D., SLOVIC P., TVERSKY A. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. 1982;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
18. KLAHR D., DUNBAR K. Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science. 12:1988;1-48.
19. LANGLEY P., SIMON H. A., BRADSHAW G. L., ZYTKOW J. M. Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes. 1987;MIT Press, Cambridge.
20. LE GRAND H. E. Experimental Inquiries. 1990;Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dodrecht.
21. MYNATT C. R., DOHERTY M. E., TWENEY R. D. Confirmation bias in a simulated environment: an experimental study of scientific inference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 29:1977;85-95.
22. PENNER D. E., KLAHR D. When to trust the data: further investigations of system error in a scientific reasoning task. Memory and Cognition. 24:1996;655-668.
23. SCHRAAGEN J. M. How experts solve a novel problem in experimental design. Cognitive Science. 17:1993;285-309.
24. SCHUNN C. D., ANDERSON J. R. The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science. 23:1999;337-370.
25. SIMON H. A., VALDÉS-PÉREZ R. E., SLEEMAN D. H. Scientific discovery (Special issue). Artificial Intelligence. 91:1997.
26. SLEEMAN D. H. Artificial intelligence and the enhancement of human creativity. GILHOOLY K. J., KEANE M. T. G., LOGIE R. H., ERDOS G. Lines of Thinking. 2:1990;173-189 John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
27. TURNBULL D., STOKES T. Manipulable systems and laboratory strategies in a biomedical institute. LE GRAND H. E. Experimental Inquiries: Historical, Philosophical and Social Studies of Experimentation in Science. 1990;167-192 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
28. VALDÉS-PÉREZ R. E. Conjecturing hidden entities by means of simplicity and conservation laws: Machine discovery in chemistry. Artificial Intelligence. 65:1994;247-280.
29. VALDÉS-PÉREZ R. E. Computer science research on scientific discovery. Knowledge Engineering Review. 11:1996;57-66.
30. WASON P. C. On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 12:1960;129-140.