Juliet De Leon: We can only understand or analyze a study within the context of collective knowing, means that our understanding of research or findings is shaped by the knowledge that already exists in society or within a particular field. In other words, new information is interpreted based on what we already know as a group.

Let’s take memory and eyewitness testimony as an example. For a long time, like most people, I believed in the absolute validity of eyewitness testimony. The idea was simple: if you saw someone commit a crime, then they must be guilty. This belief was rooted in the assumption that our memories are accurate and reliable reflections of the past.

However, over time, our understanding of memory has evolved. We’ve learned that memory isn’t as reliable as we once thought. In fact, it’s incredibly malleable and prone to error. Studies on memory have shown that our recollections can be distorted by a number of factors, such as stress, the passage of time, or even leading questions. Eyewitnesses can remember things inaccurately, sometimes unknowingly, and these false memories can feel just as vivid and real as actual events.

Juliet De Leon: This is insightful and important. I wonder what research was conducted to evaluate the impact of congestion pricing in New York. Did basic research focus on how pricing might influence commuter habits or urban transportation? Did they conduct research to measure the actual outcomes of the policy, such as changes in traffic patterns, air quality, or public transportation usage, and how did these findings affect how the congestion pricing plan was put into action or changed?

Juliet De Leon: I really like this because it shows how science can be self-correcting. Even though scientists do their best, they know their methods can have flaws and their conclusions can be wrong. Publishing allows other scientists to point out those mistakes and fix them, so over time, our understanding of the world gets more accurate.

What happens when scientific errors are never detected or corrected through publication? How does that affect the long-term progress of knowledge?

Juliet De Leon: Replication is essential because it ensures that the conclusions drawn from a study are not simply the result of a fluke or anomaly in the data. In psychology, where human behavior can be highly variable and influenced by many factors, replication helps prevent misleading conclusions. It allows us to test whether theories hold true across different populations, settings, and even over time. This is particularly crucial in fields like psychology, where findings can directly impact public policy, therapy, and even legal decisions (such as eyewitness testimony). If research can’t be reliably repeated, its value and application are limited.

Juliet De Leon: It does seem counterintuitive. Disproving seems more logical. Why does science focus on creating positive hypotheses to prove relationships or effects?

Juliet De Leon: This statement was a little tricky, like the idea of "systematic empiricism," which just means making structured, controlled observations to get reliable results.

Juliet De Leon: Authority is a big deal because, as kids, we’re taught to listen to our elders, and that tends to carry over when it comes to leaders. We often accept what they say without question. But the truth is, people in power are just as human as anyone else, and humans are flawed. There are tons of examples where leaders were just flat-out wrong—like how Tesla’s ideas were dismissed, the practice of slavery, and the whole Flat Earth Theory.

Now, we live in a time where we’re hit with information all day long from social media, news outlets, podcasts, blogs, and more. AI-generated content is so realistic these days that it’s hard to tell what’s real and what’s fake. So, more than ever, we need to be on our toes, questioning, assessing, and verifying everything we come across.

Juliet De Leon: I agree that intuition still holds value because the human mind is essentially a learning machine, constantly processing and adapting based on past experiences. While cognitive and motivational biases are often seen as pitfalls, they can sometimes serve a us in certain situations. These biases aren’t just flaws; they’re shortcuts the brain has developed over time to help us navigate the world more efficiently.

Juliet De Leon: I'm naturally inclined to agree with this statement because I see woman as being more socially inclined than men.