FeynmanR.Cargo cult science. Cal Tech commencement address. Pasadena (CA): California Institute of Technology; 1974.
2.
StanovichKE. What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press; 2010.
3.
ProninELinDYRossL.The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2002;28:369–381.
4.
CroskerryP.The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78:775–780.
5.
CrumlishNKellyBD. How psychiatrists think. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2009;15:72–79.
6.
GambrillE.Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
7.
NickersonRS. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol. 1998;2:175–220.
8.
LilienfeldSORitschelLALynnSJ, Why many clinical psychologists are resistant to evidence-based practice: Root causes and constructive remedies. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33:883–900.
9.
IoannidisJP. Why most published research findings are false. Chance. 2005;18:40–47.
10.
PigliucciMBoudryM, editors. Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press; 2013.
11.
ShapiroFSolomonRM. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1995.
12.
BungeM.What is pseudoscience?Skept Inq. 1984;9(1):36–46.
13.
LilienfeldSOAmmiratiRDavidM.Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. J Sch Psychol. 2012;50:7–36.
14.
CallahanRJ. Thought field therapy: Response to our critics and a scrutiny of some old ideas of social science. J Clin Psychol. 2001;57:1251–1260.
15.
HerbertJDLilienfeldSOLohrJM, Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Implications for clinical psychology. Clin Psychol Rev. 2000;20:945–971.
16.
LilienfeldSOLynnSJLohrJM, editors. Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. 2nd ed.New York (NY): Guilford Books; 2014.
17.
LilienfeldSOMarshallJToddJT, The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated communication for autism as a case example. Evid Based Commun Assess Interv. 2014;8:62–101.
18.
LilienfeldSO. Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2007;2:53–70.
19.
DimidjianSHollonSD. How would we know if psychotherapy were harmful?Am Psychol. 2010;65:21–33.
20.
LohrJMDevillyGJLilienfeldSO, First do no harm, and then do some good: Science and professional responsibility in the response to disaster and trauma. Behav Ther. 2006;29:131–135.
21.
LiebermanJAOgasO.Shrinks: The untold story of psychiatry. New York (NY): Little, Brown, and Company; 2015.
22.
LilienfeldSORitschelLALynnSJ, Why ineffective psychotherapies appear to work: A taxonomy of causes of spurious therapeutic effectiveness. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2014;9:355–387.
23.
BarlowDHBullisJRComerJS, Evidence-based psychological treatments: An update and a way forward. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9:1–27.
24.
LeeCMHunsleyJ.Evidence-based practice: Separating science from pseudoscience. Can J Psychiatry. 2015;60(12):534–540.
25.
GroveWMMeehlPE. Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychol Public Policy Law. 1996;2:293–323.
26.
LoftusEF. Memory distortion and false memory creation. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1996;24:281–295.
27.
LynnSJEvansJLaurenceJ-R, What do people believe about memory? Implications for the science and pseudoscience of clinical practice. Can J Psychiatry. 2015;60(12):541–547.
28.
TavrisCAronsonE.Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin Harcourt;2008.
