Bias in science (split from Evolution of religiosity)

[Luc Turpin]

Without prejudice to anyone, here Is a good example of biasness in science. The question raised begs to be answered in a certain way. If I bring up spiritual-enlightened experiences as a possible causation in the advent of religion, I find myself automatically outside of the parameters set by the question.  I contend that this happens more subtly, yet often in science; biasness taking on the form of selective "rational-reasoning" in scientific enquiry. The search of small “t” truths as aptly stated by Eise is then skewed towards a predictable-consensus accepting outcome. A pernicious way of having one’s worldview invite itself at the dinner table. Like minded thinking attracts like minded people; or is it the other way around?

On 5/29/2024 at 4:48 AM, Otto Kretschmer said:

Are there some specific evolutionary advantages to religiosity or did it simply evolve as a byproduct of the higher cognitive functions?

I'm asking because all premodern societies (and a significant portion of modern ones) were religious in one way or another. 

 

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

A pernicious way of having one’s worldview invite itself at the dinner table. Like minded thinking attracts like minded people; or is it the other way around?

It's the same coin, it's only insidious bc of the pernicious nature of value...😉 

[Luc Turpin]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's the same coin, it's only insidious bc of the pernicious nature of value...😉 

Trying hard to understand; my pea brain is not computiing; can you expand?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

Trying hard to understand; my pea brain is not computiing; can you expand?

If I value something that is bound to increase, then that is pernicious and will always be true; if it's insidious then the value can only implode...

[iNow]

47 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Like minded thinking attracts like minded people;

Peer review helps minimize this issue in science, and helps tremendously despite not being perfect. However, groupthink is off-topic in this thread here (whether or not it's applied to religiosity or scientific method)

[Luc Turpin]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

Peer review helps minimize this issue in science, and helps tremendously despite not being perfect. However, groupthink is off-topic in this thread here (whether or not it's applied to religiosity or scientific method)

Ok, then I will move on; thereby silencing once again a divergent point of view. 

You are makinig the case for me!

[iNow]

Just stay on topic, dude. You’re not Galileo 

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, iNow said:

Just stay on topic, dude. You’re not Galileo 

Not off topic and already moved on!

Galileo who? just joking! 😊

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I contend that this happens more subtly, yet often in science; biasness taking on the form of selective "rational-reasoning" in scientific enquiry.

Nothing wrong with questioning science. However, if you are a true believer in what you preach, will you be kind enough to back up your contention with a bit of science? IOW, a citation supporting your contention? Otherwise it may appear that you are biased against scientists and pulling your contention out of thin air.

[Luc Turpin]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Nothing wrong with questioning science. However, if you are a true believer in what you preach, will you be kind enough to back up your contention with a bit of science? IOW, a citation supporting your contention? Otherwise it may appear that you are biased against scientists and pulling your contention out of thin air.

Why am-I being asked to back up my contention when others are not being asked to do so also? I am the champion of links to studies and citations and references on this forum. And when I do so, people pick at the details of the citations or references or whatever and miss the general point that I am trying to make. A quick search of the net provides ample back up for my contention. Maybe not the best, but here is but one of them: "Moral, social, political, and other “nonepistemic” values can lead to bias in science, from prioritizing certain topics over others to the rationalization of questionable research practices. Such values might seem particularly common or powerful in the social sciences, given their subject matter. However, I argue first that the well-documented phenomenon of motivated reasoning (emphasis mine) provides a useful framework for understanding when values guide scientific inquiry (in pernicious or productive ways). Second, this analysis reveals a parity thesis: values influence the social and natural sciences about equally, particularly because both are so prominently affected by desires for social credit and status, including recognition and career advancement. Ultimately, bias in natural and social science is both natural and social— that is, a part of human nature and considerably motivated by a concern for social status (and its maintenance). Whether the pervasive influence of values is inimical to the sciences is a separate question." - Bias in science by Joshua May.

My contention, which is very contentious apparently, is that a mechanistic worldview rules over science and that this is running counter to the objectivity principle of science.

Again, let me move on!

 

[swansont]

36 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Why am-I being asked to back up my contention when others are not being asked to do so also?

Why have you not asked others to do so?

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, swansont said:

Why have you not asked others to do so?

Very good question swansont; because I did not think about it while I was always trying to defend myself, I guess!

[MigL]

I, personally, don't see a reason for Luc to back his 'claim' with a citation.
( or perhaps, he can cite me )

There are many examples of this effect in the history of science.
Newton's corpuscular theory of light held sway over scientific thinking for a large group of scientists.
Huygens wave theory similarly had a large number of believers in its 'truth' ( small t ).
Then, for a few centuries, the 'truth', and belief of almost all scientists, was duality, where it is both particle and wave.

The actual Truth ( capital T, or maybe I should say current belief and small t ) is that it is neither, but, a probabilistic phenomenon that can act as a wave or a particle, depending on the experiment used to detect it.

Even the various interpretations of Quantum Mechanics had their 'followers' and 'apostles'; the 'Copenhagen camp' were N Bohr's followers, and there are many examples of this 'group think' in historical literature.
 

But I do agree with INow, religion and science are based on different paradigms; one on beliefs, the other on evidence.
Luc should have started another thread to discuss the evolution of science, and its issues; this one is about religion
And I liked INow's quip about Galileo ...

Edited May 30 by MigL

[swansont]

It’s not bias to support a model that has evidence supporting it. 

In a similar vein, one should be able to show evidence if bias, rather than just an article which lays out claims of bias. And a “champion of links to studies and citations and references on this forum” might be expected to provide an actual link.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s not bias to support a model that has evidence supporting it. 

That's exactly what I thought when I read that Luc's contention is "biasness taking on the form of selective 'rational-reasoning' in scientific enquiry". Isn't he basically saying that it's biased to reject a new idea using mainstream knowledge and reasoning?

[Luc Turpin]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Luc should have started another thread to discuss the evolution of science, and its issues; this one is about religion
And I liked INow's quip about Galileo ...

1- Point well taken! I wanted to start with the opening question as an example of basic biasness, but never thought to bring the question along to another thread.

2- I also liked INow's quip about Galileo even if it was aimed at me.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

It’s not bias to support a model that has evidence supporting it. 

In a similar vein, one should be able to show evidence if bias, rather than just an article which lays out claims of bias. And a “champion of links to studies and citations and references on this forum” might be expected to provide an actual link.

1- Never implied that.

2- Showing evidence if bias is really hard to get at and I think that you know this. Historical examples (see Migl post), articles which lays out claims, and studies on the inherent biasness in all of us is all I got, which is more than most. 

3- https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18326/1/may-bias-in-science.pdf

Just now, Phi for All said:

That's exactly what I thought when I read that Luc's contention is "biasness taking on the form of selective 'rational-reasoning' in scientific enquiry". Isn't he basically saying that it's biased to reject a new idea using mainstream knowledge and reasoning?

No I am not. Either twisting it or reading too much into it. I am talking about "motivated reasoning" as indicated in the article that I provided. 

Has science ever discarded an idea without really looking into, just because it did not meet with the prevailng line of thinking?  

Correction: ".......without looking into it, just because......

There may be more mistakes.

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- Never implied that.

2- Showing evidence if bias is really hard to get at and I think that you know this. Historical examples (see Migl post), articles which lays out claims, and studies on the inherent biasness in all of us is all I got, which is more than most. 

I was responding to MigL’s points; what I want to know is how they are examples of bias, and the evidence that the bias is in the scientific process. It takes more than finger-pointing. There are reasons to support the notion that light is a particle, and that it’s a wave. Where is the bias?

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Has science ever discarded an idea without really looking into, just because it did not meet with the prevailng line of thinking?  

It has rejected ideas that did not meet with prevailing thought, but that could be because there was insufficient evidence to challenge it. What we need is evidence, and not just accusation or innuendo.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

No I am not. Either twisting it or reading too much into it. I am talking about "motivated reasoning" as indicated in the article that I provided. 

Has science ever discarded an idea without really looking into, just because it did not meet with the prevailng line of thinking?  

Correction: ".......without looking into it, just because......

There may be more mistakes.

The assumption is that ideas are discarded without really looking into them, correct? Then how did they know the ideas didn't meet with the prevailing line of thinking (also known as theory)? You have to look into an idea in order to falsify any part of it. And your assumption doesn't take into account that many people (here at least) have ideas with real stumbling blocks that are unphysical or violate well-known observations. We bring them to their attention, and guess what? They don't amend their ideas at all, but instead claim we didn't really look into it because it doesn't meet with the prevailing line of thinking.

There's a big difference between hidebound denial and favoring our current best explanations.

[Luc Turpin]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

I was responding to MigL’s points; what I want to know is how they are examples of bias, and the evidence that the bias is in the scientific process. It takes more than finger-pointing. There are reasons to support the notion that light is a particle, and that it’s a wave. Where is the bias?

 

MIgl's examples and your example are transformed into biased events when they become Truths and not truths. When no place is given to any line of thinking that runs counter to the prevailing Truth. When the mere mention of a word or a name becomes taboo. Biasness is not a thing, but a frame of mind. It is very difficult to pin down as, again, it's not a thing. Its not only in people, but also in establishments. Its not always there, but most of the time it is. And it creeps up on you!

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

There's a big difference between hidebound denial and favoring our current best explanations.

 Favoring current best explanations is not biasness, but hidebound denial is and there is some of this going on in science. 

[CharonY]

"Truth" really has no place in science. It assumes a transcendental certainty that simply is not present in science. Anything in science can be challenged and has to survive challenge for it even to be considered. Prevailing well-tested theories and models are not deemed truths, nor are they put on pedestals. Rather, they have a huge mark on their back as any scientist able to initiate a paradigm change will indubitably make their mark in their community.

That being said, the reason why theories have prevailed is because they are well supported by data and numerous studies will have to support the essence of their finding. In other words, it is not enough just to make some half-arsed assumptions and then logic your way through flawed premise- you really have to generate the data (which clearly does not exist yet, otherwise folks would have used it to challenge the models) that are so rock-solid that they can topple all the existing data in satisfactory manner.

Folks don't declare any random opinion on the internet as a scientific finding for good reason. What many are not aware is that scientific work is hard and takes time and expertise. Most work from PhD students represents years of training and (hopefully) hard work, yet depending on the field, often the results alone are insufficient to publish on their own. The reason is that it takes them years to master a methodology and only towards the end are they able to implement it on a particular problem. The assumption that we can just avoid that and just reason our way to completely new insights is, frankly, quite arrogant.

[MigL]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I was responding to MigL’s points

Scientists in the 30s and 40s had access to the same evidence of quantum behavior, yet they split along interpretative lines.
N Bohr's ( Copenhagen ) wave mechanics, and W Heisenberg's matrix mechanics.

One could call that a 'bias' of sorts, since the evidence was the same, but one camp preferred one over the other.
It was only later that those interpretations, and many more, were determined to be equivalent.

 

56 minutes ago, CharonY said:

"Truth" really has no place in science.

Where were you when I was making that exact same point in the "your thoughts on Islam' thread 🙂 .

Edited May 31 by MigL

[CharonY]

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

Scientists in the 30s and 40s had access to the same evidence of quantum behavior, yet they split along interpretative lines.
N Bohr's ( Copenhagen ) wave mechanics, and W Heisenberg's matrix mechanics.

One could call that a 'bias' of sorts, since the evidence was the same, but one camp preferred one over the other.
It was only later that those interpretations, and many more, were determined to be equivalent.

I am not saying that there is no bias in science, there are plenty examples for that and how it created bad science (most notably around issues of race, for example). But, as you know that is not my point- rather that arguing about interpretations requires a deep knowledge of, well, what is known. And there are plenty of cases where the data simply does not rule out alternate interpretation. But obviously Bohr and Heisenberg disagreeing is not the same thing as a random youtuber deciding that infection biology is all wrong.

 

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Where were you when I was making that exact same point in the "your thoughts on Islam' thread 🙂 .

 

Uh, must have missed it. I had to walk my partridge.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Scientists in the 30s and 40s had access to the same evidence of quantum behavior, yet they split along interpretative lines.
N Bohr's ( Copenhagen ) wave mechanics, and W Heisenberg's matrix mechanics.

One could call that a 'bias' of sorts, since the evidence was the same, but one camp preferred one over the other.
It was only later that those interpretations, and many more, were determined to be equivalent.

Interpretations are personal preference; I don’t see how that’s bias.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

MIgl's examples and your example are transformed into biased events when they become Truths and not truths. When no place is given to any line of thinking that runs counter to the prevailing Truth. When the mere mention of a word or a name becomes taboo. Biasness is not a thing, but a frame of mind. It is very difficult to pin down as, again, it's not a thing. Its not only in people, but also in establishments. Its not always there, but most of the time it is. And it creeps up on you!

What is the evidence that this is happening? What is “taboo” in science, other than concepts that have already been shown to be wrong?

Is it bias to e.g. dismiss perpetual motion? Or have we established the bona-fides of the laws of thermodynamics well enough that we don’t need to waste time on unsubstantiated claims?

[MigL]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Interpretations are personal preference; I don’t see how that’s bias.

Personal, subjective preferences ARE biases.

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Why am-I being asked to back up my contention when others are not being asked to do so also? I am the champion of links to studies and citations and references on this forum. And when I do so, people pick at the details of the citations or references or whatever and miss the general point that I am trying to make. A quick search of the net provides ample back up for my contention. Maybe not the best, but here is but one of them: "Moral, social, political, and other “nonepistemic” values can lead to bias in science, from prioritizing certain topics over others to the rationalization of questionable research practices. Such values might seem particularly common or powerful in the social sciences, given their subject matter. However, I argue first that the well-documented phenomenon of motivated reasoning (emphasis mine) provides a useful framework for understanding when values guide scientific inquiry (in pernicious or productive ways). Second, this analysis reveals a parity thesis: values influence the social and natural sciences about equally, particularly because both are so prominently affected by desires for social credit and status, including recognition and career advancement. Ultimately, bias in natural and social science is both natural and social— that is, a part of human nature and considerably motivated by a concern for social status (and its maintenance). Whether the pervasive influence of values is inimical to the sciences is a separate question." - Bias in science by Joshua May.

My contention, which is very contentious apparently, is that a mechanistic worldview rules over science and that this is running counter to the objectivity principle of science.

Again, let me move on!

 

The point is, scientist's as human beings are as prone to biases as anyone else; however science is different to the bible, in that, when it's done properly it essentially removes the chance of bias effecting the results, our thinking on the output is still subject to human bias, but that is reduced to a minimum bc of the peer review process.