Bias in science (split from Evolution of religiosity)

[swansont]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Personal, subjective preferences ARE biases.

But not scientific bias - you come up with the same answer.

[Luc Turpin]

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

"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.

The text wreaks of condescending undertones, but I will pass on that one.

First paragraph – I agree with most of what is being said except that prevailing well-tested theories and models are deemed to be truthful and used as such by the general and scientific communities until proven otherwise and that you would have to wake up very early in the morning to even dare to challenge well-tested theories. You doing so would be met with grave concern rather than trepidation as you seem to allude to. Also, how is this related to biasness?

Second paragraph – Again, not many issues with the text. But three things: 1- can you explain the relationship of this with biasness? It seems to me, at least, to only be remotely linked to the topic; 2- In theory, this is all good and well, but does it really play out like this in the real world? 3- How do you get funding for data collection when your idea is not being taken seriously because of biasness?

Third paragraph - So, are you saying that biasness is being washed out through the rigors of academia? Again, I am not sure of the link with biasness.

All of this felt more like a sermon than a teaching. And, maybe, a bit off topic.

 

Again, here is more of my half-assed assumptions:

How do you respond when I compare mind through brain versus mind from brain?

If you say categorically that one is true and the other false, then you are biased.

If you say that one has much more evidence in support than the other, then you are less biased.

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

I am not saying that there is no bias in science,

I sure feels like it!

9 hours ago, swansont said:

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?

What is the evidence that this is not happening? I am aware that measures are being taken to avoid biasness? But are those measures effective? Your turn to provide evidence.

So the laws of thermodynamics are Truths?

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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.

"The point is, scientist's as human beings are as prone to biases as anyone else" - yes

"However science is different to the bible" - yes

Where I differ from you is your assumption that biasness can be mostly washed out in the rise cycle. For one, biasness is there even before the science process kicks in by way of selecting who can get through the starting gate and who does not. Second, I have seen ideas got through the process more than once while having differing results at the end and I would venture that the predominating biased mindset might have something to do with this.

And for sure, I am biased on this topic like anyone else.

 

[Mordred]

One misconception that's rather common.  Science never states something is the truth. Every theory or model is " to the best of our understanding" due to observational and experimental evidence. This includes the various laws such as the above mentions laws of thermodynsmics. The only truth behind them is their success rate to match observational evidence.

Edited May 31 by Mordred

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The text wreaks of condescending undertones, but I will pass on that one.

First paragraph – I agree with most of what is being said except that prevailing well-tested theories and models are deemed to be truthful and used as such by the general and scientific communities until proven otherwise and that you would have to wake up very early in the morning to even dare to challenge well-tested theories. You doing so would be met with grave concern rather than trepidation as you seem to allude to. Also, how is this related to biasness?

Second paragraph – Again, not many issues with the text. But three things: 1- can you explain the relationship of this with biasness? It seems to me, at least, to only be remotely linked to the topic; 2- In theory, this is all good and well, but does it really play out like this in the real world? 3- How do you get funding for data collection when your idea is not being taken seriously because of biasness?

Third paragraph - So, are you saying that biasness is being washed out through the rigors of academia? Again, I am not sure of the link with biasness.

All of this felt more like a sermon than a teaching. And, maybe, a bit off topic.

 

Again, here is more of my half-assed assumptions:

How do you respond when I compare mind through brain versus mind from brain?

If you say categorically that one is true and the other false, then you are biased.

If you say that one has much more evidence in support than the other, then you are less biased.

I sure feels like it!

What is the evidence that this is not happening? I am aware that measures are being taken to avoid biasness? But are those measures effective? Your turn to provide evidence.

So the laws of thermodynamics are Truths?

"The point is, scientist's as human beings are as prone to biases as anyone else" - yes

"However science is different to the bible" - yes

Where I differ from you is your assumption that biasness can be mostly washed out in the rise cycle. For one, biasness is there even before the science process kicks in by way of selecting who can get through the starting gate and who does not. Second, I have seen ideas got through the process more than once while having differing results at the end and I would venture that the predominating biased mindset might have something to do with this.

And for sure, I am biased on this topic like anyone else.

 

Yes, but your not doing science, your doing you doing assumption, based on your inate sense of the obvious... 😉

You're not even doing it badly, science that is...

[dimreepr]

“When we can't think for ourselves, we can always quote”

― Ludwig Wittgenstein

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

What is the evidence that this is not happening? I am aware that measures are being taken to avoid biasness? But are those measures effective? Your turn to provide evidence.

My turn? You have yet to provide any.

And I can’t provide evidence of things that didn’t happen - i.e. bias avoided. 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

So the laws of thermodynamics are Truths?

Truth sounds like the situation with SJ Gould’s definition of “fact”

“In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”

IOW, the body of evidence is massive, so overturning it requires a significant amount of evidence. An observation or two won’t suffice; the first approach would be looking for confounding conditions, like a strong wind or someone throwing the apples, should you see one rising. You would not just throw out the concept of gravity based on that. 

So yes, the laws of thermodynamics would be such Truths. If someone presented you with a device purporting to be over-unity, the first order of business would be to look for the hidden battery, as opposed to chucking thermodynamics in the dustbin.

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

“When we can't think for ourselves, we can always quote”

― Ludwig Wittgenstein

“Why is dimreepr a distracting source of pithy commentary instead of actually adding to the discussion?”

— me

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

“Why is dimreepr a distracting source of pithy commentary instead of actually adding to the discussion?”

— me

Did you ever consider that I may have a point?

[TheVat]

"37% of quotes on the Internet are misattributed." - Geoffrey Chaucer

[Luc Turpin]

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

My turn? You have yet to provide any.

And I can’t provide evidence of things that didn’t happen - i.e. bias avoided. 

Truth sounds like the situation with SJ Gould’s definition of “fact”

“In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”

IOW, the body of evidence is massive, so overturning it requires a significant amount of evidence. An observation or two won’t suffice; the first approach would be looking for confounding conditions, like a strong wind or someone throwing the apples, should you see one rising. You would not just throw out the concept of gravity based on that. 

So yes, the laws of thermodynamics would be such Truths. If someone presented you with a device purporting to be over-unity, the first order of business would be to look for the hidden battery, as opposed to chucking thermodynamics in the dustbin.

“Why is dimreepr a distracting source of pithy commentary instead of actually adding to the discussion?”

— me

1- What do you need as kind of evidence as I seem to have provided at least one and it did not fit the bill?

2- Ho yes it can be done! bias avoidance can be measured or qualitatively derived.

3 to 6 - Very instructive; no sarcasm intended

7- I do find Dim's citation relevant and liked the "-me"

17 minutes ago, TheVat said:

"37% of quotes on the Internet are misattributed." - Geoffrey Chaucer

And 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized.

https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Did you ever consider that I may have a point?

it’s still just commentary, doesn’t address the topic, and as far as I can see there was only one quote provided, which was on-topic, though did not constitute evidence. So while I’m sure you think you have a point, by not providing enough discussion and context, you have not made it apparent.

[CharonY]

I think the arguments also conflate two very different things. One, individual bias of researchers. These are addressed by best practices that, depending on field and question  can reduce or eliminate biases, whereas in newer and fast-moving fields it might still take time to identify those best practices.

The other aspect is just flawed or bad science, which does not necessarily arise from anything like bias but could be malicious, but also just based on incomplete data. These are also getting weeded out over time as new data arises. What Luc seems to propose is that because things are not perfect, we should just ignore the existing body of knowledge, which obviously does not make sense.

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Where I differ from you is your assumption that biasness can be mostly washed out in the rise cycle. For one, biasness is there even before the science process kicks in by way of selecting who can get through the starting gate and who does not.

I'm sure you have examples you can cite, but your statement infers that this happens frequently. Are you assuming that "the science process" does this automatically and with no real parameters or reasons? If this starting gate selection process requires that all ideas presented must be falsifiable, is this a bad thing?

 

[MigL]

My personal definition of a 'bias' is a subjective like, or dislike, that is not based on available information.
As an example, I know both bread and cake have equal calories, and both are bad for me, but I prefer savory bread, and dislike sweet cake; someone else, with that same information, may like cake, and dislike bread.

This has happened in science, and I still believe early QM interpretations are an example.

That being said, I do agree it is very rare ( but does happen ) in the hard sciences. It is probably ( my opinion, or bias ) more prevalent in the 'softer' sciences, like Psychology or Sociology where multiple 'conclusions' can be drawn from similar observations.
As an example, if a Psychologist links every human interaction to sex, is it a reflection of his observations, or a reflection of his own obsession ?

[Mordred]

There is one example of the scientific I can provide with regards to Cosmology. At one time the FLRW metric did not have a cosmological constant term. This went on for roughly 40 to 50 years.

Later findings and research found that universe expansion was accelerating. So the FLRW metric was repaired with the new findings. The Cosmologicsl constant term was then added.

That's just one example. If later research shows an inaccuracy or a better method then the theory either gets a modification or revamped entirely.

Another example is just prior to Higgs at one time the neutrino was considered massless later findings showed it has a miniscule mass term. The Higgs research showed how the neutrino acquires mass.

Research and observational evidence will trump any theory or bias once the evidence becomes sufficient

Edited May 31 by Mordred

[Luc Turpin]

25 minutes ago, CharonY said:

What Luc seems to propose is that because things are not perfect, we should just ignore the existing body of knowledge, which obviously does not make sense.

I forcefully object. When did I say to ignore the existing body of knowledge? What I am saying though is that biases, values and beliefs all have an effect on science and the scientific process, no matter what stop gap measures are in place. By recognizing this more forcefully, there would be even more open mindedness and objectivity in science.

55 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm sure you have examples you can cite, but your statement infers that this happens frequently. Are you assuming that "the science process" does this automatically and with no real parameters or reasons? If this starting gate selection process requires that all ideas presented must be falsifiable, is this a bad thing?

 

It is like a background noise humming along all the time. Its people doing it, not the process. The process tries to control this with limited success. Falsifiability is a good thing. Things go south because falsifiability is not the only factor at play in determining who goes through the gate or not; biasness, values and beliefs insidiously invite themselves in the process.

Note: This is all going on mostly subconsciously, thereby making it hard to notice and put in check; hence the insidiousness.

31 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Research and observational evidence will trump any theory or bias once the evidence becomes sufficient

What about the interpretation of observational evidence? Is it not malleable to biasness? And are there not many interpretations of observational evidence, even in cosmology?

[CharonY]

9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

By recognizing this more forcefully, there would be even more open mindedness and objectivity in science.

The opposite is going to happen, if you want to address bias, you have to increase rigour. I.e. you throw out more of the perhaps in order to ensure that you only keep the most scrutinized parts. There is always a balance between how many false positives to false negatives do we want to have. But if you think bias is a problem, it means we have to scrutinize more, not less.

[Luc Turpin]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The opposite is going to happen, if you want to address bias, you have to increase rigour. I.e. you throw out more of the perhaps in order to ensure that you only keep the most scrutinized parts. There is always a balance between how many false positives to false negatives do we want to have. But if you think bias is a problem, it means we have to scrutinize more, not less.

Increasing checks and balances on biasness while maintaining rigour should bring about more diversity while maintaining quality. Agree that it is a difficult balancing act. Agree also that you have to scrutinize more, not less.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

What about the interpretation of observational evidence? Is it not malleable to biasness? And are there not many interpretations of observational evidence, even in cosmology?

They gradually change as well though interpretations is more the realm of metaphysics which is more philosophy than physics. Truth be told as a physicist I honestly don't waste much time with interpretations. I've always been more concerned with mathematical to observational accuracy. The interpretations particularly those involved in QM and entanglement too often get in the way.

Lately I've found metaphysics argument has all too often become a tool for those that try to change physics without understanding the mathematics.  So you see far too many posters in Speculations arguing against main stream and we'll tested physics based on personal feelings and interpretations.

Edited May 31 by Mordred

[MigL]

A much more current example would be the 'infatuation' of some Physicists with String Theory.
It has pretty well been shown to lead nowhere, as it doesn't apply to any specific universe, but many possible ones.

Yet the 'beauty' of the theory keeps many Physicists working on it, the thought being that aesthetics make 'right'.
That seems to me, a 'bias'.

Sorry if I seem to be picking on Physicists, but that is what I know.

[swansont]

Perhaps we could get a definition of bias (or “biasness”), because I’m not seeing it.

I thought bias was favoring or disfavoring a result in a way not justified by the evidence.

I don’t see how e.g. studying string theory is bias, since nobody is saying it’s an actual model of anything, yet. It’s a work in progress. It’s not like it’s been shown to be wrong, and studied anyway. 

Funding of string theory is probably an example of bias. 

 

[exchemist]

On 5/30/2024 at 3:35 PM, 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!

 

It may be worth keeping in mind what science is. Methodological naturalism is at the heart of the scientific method. It you want to call that a mechanistic worldview, then I'm afraid there is no getting away from that. Consideration of supernatural influences lies outside the scope of science, by definition. And so does any evidence that is purely individual and subjective, i.e. is not objectively reproducible.  Your "spiritually enlightening experiences", if reported by different people, may be taken as evidence of something that happens in the minds of people, but won't be taken by science as evidence of anything supernatural. 

[Luc Turpin]

34 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It may be worth keeping in mind what science is. Methodological naturalism is at the heart of the scientific method. It you want to call that a mechanistic worldview, then I'm afraid there is no getting away from that. Consideration of supernatural influences lies outside the scope of science, by definition. And so does any evidence that is purely individual and subjective, i.e. is not objectively reproducible.  Your "spiritually enlightening experiences", if reported by different people, may be taken as evidence of something that happens in the minds of people, but won't be taken by science as evidence of anything supernatural. 

"Methodological naturalism" is the method by which science is done. A mechanistic world view is derived from the interpretation of the data that is being produced. I contend that this interpretation of data does not necessarily and automatically conclude that the world is a mechanical device of grand proportion. And I contend that biasness is at least partially at play in this interpretation of facts, as a mechanistic worldview is being taken as an "état de fait". What I am then saying is that you can do methodological naturalistic science without espousing a mechanistic worldview.

Purely individual and subjective experiences are already being studied by science. This is just being done differently than "normal' science and produces both data and reproductible results.    

I contend also that "spiritually enlightening experiences" might or might not all be coming from the head and that if it is not coming from the head, then science will have to "deal" with this. The jury is still very much out though on this one and only meticulous data collection and analysis will be able make the case for one or the other. Gravity is a force that does not need the supernatural for explanation. So, why not a mind force being an integral part of the universe having or not supernatural features? Also, I would have been biased if I had told you that this mind force must solely rely on the supernatural.

I have a different worldview that most of you on this science platform, but as one says in French, "vive la différence".

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

it’s still just commentary, doesn’t address the topic, and as far as I can see there was only one quote provided, which was on-topic, though did not constitute evidence. So while I’m sure you think you have a point, by not providing enough discussion and context, you have not made it apparent.

It's commentary on the subject, bias isn't a rational process, my context is inherent in the topic we're discussing and your response was symptomatic of the in group out group theory ; bc I was trying to explain to @Luc Turpin how science 'the process' tries to reduce the irrational bias that our dominant handedness produces, means were more likely to chose in that direction. 

"it’s still just commentary, doesn’t address the topic, and as far as I can see there was only one quote provided, which was on-topic, though did not constitute evidence."

Evidence of what, that scientist's are immune to bias bc of the rational nature of the process they follow? There's studies that show that even when interviewing is ridigly structured, the time of day often dictates the type of interview conducted and the outcome.

[Luc Turpin]

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's commentary on the subject, bias isn't a rational process, my context is inherent in the topic we're discussing and your response was symptomatic of the in group out group theory ; bc I was trying to explain to @Luc Turpin how science 'the process' tries to reduce the irrational bias that our dominant handedness produces, means were more likely to chose in that direction. 

"it’s still just commentary, doesn’t address the topic, and as far as I can see there was only one quote provided, which was on-topic, though did not constitute evidence."

Evidence of what, that scientist's are immune to bias bc of the rational nature of the process they follow? There's studies that show that even when interviewing is ridigly structured, the time of day often dictates the type of interview conducted and the outcome.

I would have given a +2 but I can't.

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's commentary on the subject, bias isn't a rational process, my context is inherent in the topic we're discussing and your response was symptomatic of the in group out group theory ; bc I was trying to explain to @Luc Turpin how science 'the process' tries to reduce the irrational bias that our dominant handedness produces, means were more likely to chose in that direction. 

How your quote addresses that is beyond me, seeing as it does not mention bias in any way.

 

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"it’s still just commentary, doesn’t address the topic, and as far as I can see there was only one quote provided, which was on-topic, though did not constitute evidence."

Evidence of what, that scientist's are immune to bias bc of the rational nature of the process they follow? There's studies that show that even when interviewing is ridigly structured, the time of day often dictates the type of interview conducted and the outcome.

I don’t think anyone has argued that scientists are immune to bias. Certainly not the OP. Quite the opposite.