Bias in science (split from Evolution of religiosity)

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

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

Do you mean the Wittgenstein quote?

Quote

 

Ludwig Wittgenstein once said, "When we can’t think for ourselves, we can always quote.". It highlights the idea that sometimes we rely on the wisdom of others when our own thoughts fail us.

Carl Sagan expressed a similar sentiment: "If we can’t think for ourselves, if we’re unwilling to question authority, then we’re just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us."

 

There is an inherent bias in how those in power see the world and how it affects those without, for instance, (I can't recall the name of the study) when 'problem' children are introduced to hardened criminal's as a means to frighten them into going straight, 70ish% of them ended up in prison even though they were terrified at the prospect.

That seems relevant. 

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Do you mean the Wittgenstein quote?

Since that’s what I was talking about, yes.

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There is an inherent bias in how those in power see the world and how it affects those without, for instance, (I can't recall the name of the study) when 'problem' children are introduced to hardened criminal's as a means to frighten them into going straight, 70ish% of them ended up in prison even though they were terrified at the prospect.

That seems relevant. 

Relevant? Possibly. But you did’t provide this information/context earlier (nor the Sagan quote), which is the problem. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Since that’s what I was talking about, yes.

Relevant? Possibly. But you did’t provide this information/context earlier, which is the problem. 

I rely on my intolocutor, to provide the context for my answers, I'm not very good at anticipating the direction of the conversation...

[Phi for All]

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Your objection seems less about bias and more about too much rigor, that the gatekeepers are holding those trying to get through to standards they can't meet. I've seen this argument a LOT in the last 20 years here, always from people whose ideas can't be supported by evidence. They usually want us to look past the mistakes we see and embrace the core concept, to give it a chance, to not be so hidebound and biased.

As others have said, science isn't immune to bias, but not all rejection is biased. Individuals make mistakes, and we hope that peer review and the rest of the process can weed those out. Even mistakes in objectivity.

[Luc Turpin]

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Your objection seems less about bias and more about too much rigor, that the gatekeepers are holding those trying to get through to standards they can't meet. I've seen this argument a LOT in the last 20 years here, always from people whose ideas can't be supported by evidence. They usually want us to look past the mistakes we see and embrace the core concept, to give it a chance, to not be so hidebound and biased.

As others have said, science isn't immune to bias, but not all rejection is biased. Individuals make mistakes, and we hope that peer review and the rest of the process can weed those out. Even mistakes in objectivity.

I am advocating for more rigor, not less, but on biasness as well as upholding the standards. Agree that science isn't immune to bias, but not all rejection is biased. Peer review and the rest of the process is good, but, I contend, insufficient to totally arrest the effects of biasness as well as of values and beliefs.

While both upholding standards, I contend that a mind through brain proposal would be met with much more scepticism than a mind from brain one, no matter the set standards target. It would be treated differently in the 'minds" of the evaluators. Just look at the reception that I got on this forum platform. DrmDoc eloquently advocated for the latter, but I felt that notwithstanding the evidence and arguments that I provided, not very many were taking my position even half-seriously, because of biasness. You would conted, because of evidence and I would counter, because of evidence and biasness. Again, not feeling as the victim here as it is normal to be sceptical of things that do not square with our belief system. Its part of human nature and there is not fault to be handed down.

It is what it is, not what it should be.

We are all biased and must recognize this to be less biased. And as there no "Truths", there is no total "unbiasness".

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I felt that notwithstanding the evidence and arguments that I provided, not very many were taking my position even half-seriously, because of biasness.

I freely admit that I’m biased against argument via hand waving and empty “what-if” speculation in favor of measurable testable evidence in support. Not all bias is bad. The best ideas will always withstand criticism.

It’s important to be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out. 

This is a science forum. If you want to post on a wild assed guess forum, then do so, but I’d say you and your ideas posted here have been treated both respectfully and with more kindness than most. Maybe you just need a thicker skin (or, even better, a better argument).

Thus far, I’m open to the idea that consciousness and mind may extend farther throughout nature than our society currently believes, but I find your attempts to convince others of that possibility thus far rather lacking (and also off topic here in this thread). You seem only to see data which supports your preconceived conclusions. 

There is bias, and it’s in your sampling approach and cherry picking. 

Edited June 1 by iNow

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I freely admit that I’m biased against argument via hand waving and empty “what-if” speculation in favor of measurable testable evidence in support. Not all bias is bad. The best ideas will always withstand criticism.

It’s important to be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out. 

This is a science forum. If you want to post on a wild assed guess forum, then do so, but I’d say you and your ideas posted here have been treated both respectfully and with more kindness than most. Maybe you just need a thicker skin (or, even better, a better argument).

Thus far, I’m open to the idea that consciousness and mind may extend farther throughout nature than our society currently believes, but I find your attempts to convince others of that possibility thus far rather lacking (and also off topic here in this thread). You seem only to see data which supports your preconceived conclusions. 

There is bias, and it’s in your sampling approach and cherry picking. 

1- I have tried to bring some sort of evidence into play, but it has rightfully been received with suspicion. Not all bias is bad, but most of it is. If it stops a good idea from moving forward, then it is bad.The best ideas will not always withstand criticism.

2- Agree

3- I entirely agree that my ideas have been treated both respectfully and with more kindness than most. Actually, I was wondering why? No need for thicker skin then.

4- Good that you are open to the idea that consciousness and mind may extend farther than the brain. My attempts are rather lacking, because there is lack of evidence and there is lack of evidence, because it is difficult to get funding and publishing opportunities to present the evidence. Also, the field is in early adolescence and going through growth issues. And also, it is not an easy field to investigate. And, and, I may be very inapt at it. Furthermore, there is no Hadron collective collider effort in pursuit of “to the best of our understanding knowledge”.

As for being off topic here in this thread, I am answering those that ask questions off topic while all the while trying to relate it back to biasness. And, I am not the only going off topic on threads. But admit that I have been off topic before.

5- My sampling approach is willingly biased, because there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence being presented for the other side of the coin. I am willingly counter balancing the pendulum in the hope that it finds balance.

What would be needed in my approach for it to be more convincing and less lacking?

At least there is a conversation whereas my post was before met with radio silence.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Peer review and the rest of the process is good, but, I contend, insufficient to totally arrest the effects of biasness as well as of values and beliefs.

I'd like to point out that you've made some version of this claim every time someone brings up ways to avoid bias. Individually, these points may be insufficient, but the way your argument works, the whole is never taken into consideration. And I think you're also making the mistake of thinking that we need to "totally arrest" anything bad about a system or it's no good to us at all. 

[Luc Turpin]

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'd like to point out that you've made some version of this claim every time someone brings up ways to avoid bias. Individually, these points may be insufficient, but the way your argument works, the whole is never taken into consideration. And I think you're also making the mistake of thinking that we need to "totally arrest" anything bad about a system or it's no good to us at all. 

How does one check his biasness at the front door when one does not even know that he may be biased.

Why even bother checking his biasness at the front door when one thinks that the peer review process will take care of it.

Aren't members of the peer review group basically scientists sharing the same worldview.

Total arrest is impossible.

Peer review is necessary and irreplaceable

I do not want to demolish the foundation, but to solidify and broaden it.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

How does one check his biasness at the front door when one does not even know that he may be biased.

By investigating methodologies and figuring out where in a given experiment or method bias can creep in and how to avoid that. The outcome is what we generally refer to as best practice. That is why a certain rigidity is presence of science and why if you come up with an entirely new approach, you have to provide evidence that your approach has less error than prevailing one. Otherwise it will get dismissed. This is also why I mentioned earlier that more rigour will throw out more claims rather than allowing more to prevail.

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Aren't members of the peer review group basically scientists sharing the same worldview.

No, if you have a group of three scientists, you likely have at least four competing worldviews. They may have similar levels of training, though the form is very discipline-dependent. A mathematician will have little experimental training, but might be able to tell you why your statistical analysis of your data is stupid.

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I do not want to demolish the foundation, but to solidify and broaden it.

Again, rigour requires understanding of potential issues. By definition, it narrows it down to established best practices. Generally speaking, we do not want to entirely throw out new ideas if they might have merit, that is why some speculation is permissible. If you solidify it, you are more likely to reduce diversity. 

[Luc Turpin]

26 minutes ago, CharonY said:

By investigating methodologies and figuring out where in a given experiment or method bias can creep in and how to avoid that. The outcome is what we generally refer to as best practice. That is why a certain rigidity is presence of science and why if you come up with an entirely new approach, you have to provide evidence that your approach has less error than prevailing one. Otherwise it will get dismissed. This is also why I mentioned earlier that more rigour will throw out more claims rather than allowing more to prevail.

 

No, if you have a group of three scientists, you likely have at least four competing worldviews. They may have similar levels of training, though the form is very discipline-dependent. A mathematician will have little experimental training, but might be able to tell you why your statistical analysis of your data is stupid.

 

Again, rigour requires understanding of potential issues. By definition, it narrows it down to established best practices. Generally speaking, we do not want to entirely throw out new ideas if they might have merit, that is why some speculation is permissible. If you solidify it, you are more likely to reduce diversity. 

Your post has been very instructive.

It may be I that needs to put my biasness in check over biasness in science.

but a few more questions and point of views before doing so.

Why this prevalent homogeneity of views in science?

Does the process without intent turns square pegs into round ones in order to make them fit into round holes?

Is it evidence that pushes results towards predictable outcomes or the process itself as well?

why has entire fields of scientific investigation been relinquished to the fringes of science?

Why are near death experiences all Susan Blackmore and not also Bruce Greyson?

Have you ever heard of a case where a materialistic point of view has been criticized for being such? It happens all the time for a non-materialistic point of view!

in my readings, I have encountered  many very very good scientists that have remainder totally unknown, because their scientific results did not fit with mainstream science.

why have some scientists been informed that their proposed line of scientific investigation was bad for their careers? It was like that for consciousness a while back ago.

Why this incessant need to reassure readers of scientific articles that the results obtained are in line with currently accepted theory? This happens even more frequently in evolutionary biology, but in all other disciplines also.

Hope that I am not upsetting anyone with my odd questions.

i am a square peg not fitting in the round, and that is good and bad.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Why this prevalent homogeneity of views in science?

I disagree with this premise. I think what you do not quite appreciate is that there are things that are well-established and things that are still under investigation. Among the former, the key elements have been investigated so thoroughly that most reasonable folks with knowledge simply have no objections to the assumption. To a lay person it might seem like homogeneity, but it is really just because hundreds or thousands of scientists worked on that view and that it all the alternative explanations have been effective discarded because of the accumulated evidence. The laws of thermodynamics are such an example, in hundred of years no one really managed to challenge them meaningfully, so it makes a lot of sense to start with them as a given. Similarly, you probably would not want to consider flat Earth as a reasonable starting point.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Does the process without intent turns square pegs into round ones in order to make them fit into round holes?

no

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Is it evidence that pushes results towards predictable outcomes or the process itself as well?

This does not make sense. If you have a model it has to allow for predictions under the situation covered by your model. Data measured under those conditions either fall in line with the prediction or they don't. In the latter case you have to revise your model.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

why has entire fields of scientific investigation been relinquished to the fringes of science?

This does not make sense. Either the field is fringe, which basically just means that not a lot of folks are interested in it (could be for a lot reason, personal interest, difficulty or insufficiently developed to do proper science). Or it is a field in which case by definition it is not fringe.

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Why are near death experiences all Susan Blackmore and not also Bruce Greyson?

I don't know either. But there are quite a few papers on near death experiences. Probably just not discussing it in a way that you find attractive.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Have you ever heard of a case where a materialistic point of view has been criticized for being such? It happens all the time for a non-materialistic point of view!

Natural science deals with the material world. It would be weird to criticize something, which is the basis for your work. 

It is likely trying build a religion but decide that humans have no place in it and only squirrels are allowed to follow it.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

in my readings, I have encountered  many very very good scientists that have remainder totally unknown, because their scientific results did not fit with mainstream science.

I have worked with hundreds of scientists who are not famous (and I am certainly not myself). You should define mainstream here. If you mean with areas that are obscure, you are likely wrong. I know specialists in very weird and specific fields that do not make much sense to me, but they still follow scientific approaches. If you mean that they are doing non-mainstream approaches then I refer you to my above comment regarding rigor. If you cannot show that your approach is scientifically sound, folks will not consider it much more than unscientific guessing. When I develop a new method, I have to compare it with existing best practices. I cannot just make something up.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

why have some scientists been informed that their proposed line of scientific investigation was bad for their careers? It was like that for consciousness a while back ago.

This seems like a random statement without context. There are many scientists working on various aspects of consciousness. Probably someone should tell them that it is somehow bas for their careers.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Why this incessant need to reassure readers of scientific articles that the results obtained are in line with currently accepted theory? This happens even more frequently in evolutionary biology, but in all other disciplines also.

You are missing the point that some things are well established and some other parts (which are usually the key elements of the paper) are novel. But to understand the novelty you have to understand the field. If you have only a cursory understanding (if at all) it may not look like a difference to you. 

What I am sensing is that you have an assumption regarding science that confuses you, and it is clear that you would need more understanding of a given field (rather than superficial in multiple) to get a sense what is really going on. 

[Luc Turpin]

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I disagree with this premise. I think what you do not quite appreciate is that there are things that are well-established and things that are still under investigation. Among the former, the key elements have been investigated so thoroughly that most reasonable folks with knowledge simply have no objections to the assumption. To a lay person it might seem like homogeneity, but it is really just because hundreds or thousands of scientists worked on that view and that it all the alternative explanations have been effective discarded because of the accumulated evidence. The laws of thermodynamics are such an example, in hundred of years no one really managed to challenge them meaningfully, so it makes a lot of sense to start with them as a given. Similarly, you probably would not want to consider flat Earth as a reasonable starting point.

no

This does not make sense. If you have a model it has to allow for predictions under the situation covered by your model. Data measured under those conditions either fall in line with the prediction or they don't. In the latter case you have to revise your model.

This does not make sense. Either the field is fringe, which basically just means that not a lot of folks are interested in it (could be for a lot reason, personal interest, difficulty or insufficiently developed to do proper science). Or it is a field in which case by definition it is not fringe.

 

I don't know either. But there are quite a few papers on near death experiences. Probably just not discussing it in a way that you find attractive.

Natural science deals with the material world. It would be weird to criticize something, which is the basis for your work. 

It is likely trying build a religion but decide that humans have no place in it and only squirrels are allowed to follow it.

I have worked with hundreds of scientists who are not famous (and I am certainly not myself). You should define mainstream here. If you mean with areas that are obscure, you are likely wrong. I know specialists in very weird and specific fields that do not make much sense to me, but they still follow scientific approaches. If you mean that they are doing non-mainstream approaches then I refer you to my above comment regarding rigor. If you cannot show that your approach is scientifically sound, folks will not consider it much more than unscientific guessing. When I develop a new method, I have to compare it with existing best practices. I cannot just make something up.

This seems like a random statement without context. There are many scientists working on various aspects of consciousness. Probably someone should tell them that it is somehow bas for their careers.

You are missing the point that some things are well established and some other parts (which are usually the key elements of the paper) are novel. But to understand the novelty you have to understand the field. If you have only a cursory understanding (if at all) it may not look like a difference to you. 

What I am sensing is that you have an assumption regarding science that confuses you, and it is clear that you would need more understanding of a given field (rather than superficial in multiple) to get a sense what is really going on. 

You have good counter-arguments.

I gave you an outsiders perspective and you gave a good insiders perspective.

+1 

I think that my post before this one was my weakest.

apologies for this!

[MigL]

I have posted that there may be some biases in science, gave a few examples, and even posted my definition of a 'bias' to support my stance.

That being said, science, and the scientific method, is like democracy; certainly not perfect, but way better than any alternative.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am advocating for more rigor, not less, but on biasness as well as upholding the standards.

The science of bias is out there, in many thousands of studies; you do the rigor, and 'then' explain which bias the scientific process fails to address.

 

9 hours ago, MigL said:

That being said, science, and the scientific method, is like democracy; certainly not perfect, but way better than any alternative.

There you go, bringing politics into the discussion; talk about muddying the waters... 😉

[Luc Turpin]

A good night's sleep is wonderful.

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

I disagree with this premise. I think what you do not quite appreciate is that there are things that are well-established and things that are still under investigation. Among the former, the key elements have been investigated so thoroughly that most reasonable folks with knowledge simply have no objections to the assumption. To a lay person it might seem like homogeneity, but it is really just because hundreds or thousands of scientists worked on that view and that it all the alternative explanations have been effective discarded because of the accumulated evidence. The laws of thermodynamics are such an example, in hundred of years no one really managed to challenge them meaningfully, so it makes a lot of sense to start with them as a given. Similarly, you probably would not want to consider flat Earth as a reasonable starting point.

no

This does not make sense. If you have a model it has to allow for predictions under the situation covered by your model. Data measured under those conditions either fall in line with the prediction or they don't. In the latter case you have to revise your model.

This does not make sense. Either the field is fringe, which basically just means that not a lot of folks are interested in it (could be for a lot reason, personal interest, difficulty or insufficiently developed to do proper science). Or it is a field in which case by definition it is not fringe.

 

I don't know either. But there are quite a few papers on near death experiences. Probably just not discussing it in a way that you find attractive.

Natural science deals with the material world. It would be weird to criticize something, which is the basis for your work. 

It is likely trying build a religion but decide that humans have no place in it and only squirrels are allowed to follow it.

I have worked with hundreds of scientists who are not famous (and I am certainly not myself). You should define mainstream here. If you mean with areas that are obscure, you are likely wrong. I know specialists in very weird and specific fields that do not make much sense to me, but they still follow scientific approaches. If you mean that they are doing non-mainstream approaches then I refer you to my above comment regarding rigor. If you cannot show that your approach is scientifically sound, folks will not consider it much more than unscientific guessing. When I develop a new method, I have to compare it with existing best practices. I cannot just make something up.

This seems like a random statement without context. There are many scientists working on various aspects of consciousness. Probably someone should tell them that it is somehow bas for their careers.

What I am sensing is that you have an assumption regarding science that confuses you, and it is clear that you would need more understanding of a given field (rather than superficial in multiple) to get a sense what is really going on. 

1 - I contend that well-established and still under investigation things are mostly of the same genus. Data is the main driver of this, but there is also the process itself and predominant mind-set of the moment that sets the tone, with the latter being influenced amongst other things by biasness, values and beliefs. On process, let me make myself very clear, the process does not need to be replaced by something else as this one is the best that we have and a different one would only have other intended or unintended consequences of its own on outcome. What I am saying is how can one think that the process does not have any impact on outcome? All processes, that they be financial or administrative make outputs tend towards similar outcomes. It is their nature and main reason for being created and used. They structure thinking and action in a certain way, so they constrain movement of thought and action. On the predominant mind-set, this is where it gets interesting as this has a powerful impact on homogenisation of outcome. For example, it is much harder for me to go against grain in this forum than to acquiesce to the prevailing worldview. We are social animals wanting to fit in. And this I say, has an impact on outcome. And no matter what measure is taken or tweak in the process being made, it will still be there. It is an inalienable part of humanity and there is no way around it not influencing the way we think and believe. We need to contend with process and predominant mind-set, not believe that they have gone away with no effect on outcome.

2- yes, see response 1-

3- Agree, but interpretation of data is where biasness may set in to influence outcome.

4- And it could also be biasness towards a certain field of science. Some scientists still believe that consciousness is not a valid field of study as it is not measurable.

5- I have read both sides of the story on NDE's. I contend that with a materialist mind-set, I would tend to think that the one's saying that it is all in our heads are correct and than those saying that it is out in the world, are not. And I contend that it would be the other way around if I was a non-materialist. Furthermore, as the predominant mind-set is materialism, then Susan Blackmore is more noted than Bruce Greyson.

6 and 7- Materialism is not a fundamental ingredient in the recipe of science; that it is a given in science. It is not. It is an interpretation of scientists through data that our world is so. Its is a worlview coming out of science. As it not being a main ingredient of science, it should stand aside as it taints everthing else that goes about in science and skews (biases) the exploration of reality in a certain direction. I also contend that some data is being ignored just because it might contradict this worldview.

8- I am talking about scientists working on significant projects that have contrary implications on prevailing theories and stay at the "fringe" of science, because of the very fact of being contrarian to theory.

9- I said that this was the case early, but no longer the case now. How about me showing up at a consciousness lab today and saying that I want to study mind through brain, would I get the same reception as me saying that I want to study mind from brain?

10- Agree that it is a fault of mine and has implications on my understanding of science. But, another point of view on science coming from a different perspective might shed light in a different way on science. Maybe, sometimes, I can see the tree while you can only see the leaves. And yes, I do not always see the leaves.

10 hours ago, MigL said:

That being said, science, and the scientific method, is like democracy; certainly not perfect, but way better than any alternative.

Agree

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The science of bias is out there, in many thousands of studies; you do the rigor, and 'then' explain which bias the scientific process fails to address.

Yes, but while keeping in might that it might still be lurking in the background

correction; .....while keeping in mind that it might still be lurking.....

[dimreepr]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

Yes, but while keeping in might that it might still be lurking in the background

Who cares, if you want to find the truth you've got to be prepared for the 'ugly'...

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Who cares, if you want to find the truth you've got to be prepared for the 'ugly'...

Looking for perfection where there is none to be found.

[swansont]

15 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Hope that I am not upsetting anyone with my odd questions.

The upsetting thing is that you are making claims without substantiating them.

Such as “Why this prevalent homogeneity of views in science?” and 

“why has entire fields of scientific investigation been relinquished to the fringes of science?”

Both questions assume an underlying premise that you have not shown to be true. 

[Luc Turpin]

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

The upsetting thing is that you are making claims without substantiating them.

 

Such as “Why this prevalent homogeneity of views in science?” and 

“why has entire fields of scientific investigation been relinquished to the fringes of science?”

Both questions assume an underlying premise that you have not shown to be true. 

Point well taken

appearance of is not evidence of

I will do a review of literature, but may take some time as I have an activity next week that will keep me away from electronic gadgets.

homogeneity as in only one worldview permeating all of science

entire fields of study; should have said fields of study outside of of predominating worldview. Gave many examples in the numerous references that I provided in former posts

 

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Materialism is not a fundamental ingredient in the recipe of science; that it is a given in science. It is not. It is an interpretation of scientists through data that our world is so. Its is a worlview coming out of science. As it not being a main ingredient of science, it should stand aside as it taints everthing else that goes about in science and skews (biases) the exploration of reality in a certain direction. I also contend that some data is being ignored just because it might contradict this worldview.

There is data that provides evidence of nonmaterial entities?  

Physicalism (the term used in philosophy of science) is not an "ingredient," but rather the default assumption in the absence of any indication of supernatural realms or objects.  And the only assumption is one of parsimony - in the absence of data that points towards dualism, it makes sense to adopt a provisional stance of monism.  There is no coherent view, so far, of how nonphysical entities could interact with physical ones, that doesn't logically break down into contradiction.  

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

homogeneity as in only one worldview permeating all of science

I look forward to your demonstration of this.

What if there are competing views, but one wins because of demonstrated flaws in the competitors, or that the adopted view just works better? 

[Luc Turpin]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

I look forward to your demonstration of this.

What if there are competing views, but one wins because of demonstrated flaws in the competitors, or that the adopted view just works better? 

I have better than that and it is not in my favour, at least as it pertains to mind.

“The 2020 PhilPapers Survey of Anglophone academic philosophers’ views has just been published. On the philosophy of mind, physicalism (AKA materialism) remains the view of the majority, but only just, with 51.9% of philosophers professing to accept/lean towards physicalism about the mind. However, a very large minority of 32.1% align with non-physicalism about the mind (15.9% are undecided, accept an alternative to both, or think the question is too unclear to answer*). There was also a more specific question on ‘Consciousness’ which allows us to dig a bit deeper. Among those who accept/lean towards non-physicalism, approximately 3/4 are dualists and 1/4 are panpsychists.”

i need then to redact myself on his matter. 

https://conscienceandconsciousness.com/2021/11/01/materialism-remains-the-majority-view-but-only-just/

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

There is data that provides evidence of nonmaterial entities?  

Physicalism (the term used in philosophy of science) is not an "ingredient," but rather the default assumption in the absence of any indication of supernatural realms or objects.  And the only assumption is one of parsimony - in the absence of data that points towards dualism, it makes sense to adopt a provisional stance of monism.  There is no coherent view, so far, of how nonphysical entities could interact with physical ones, that doesn't logically break down into contradiction.  

1- no entities, but something maybe going on beyond the realm of the purely material, yes. 

2- why the automatic default to physicalism though. If one is to explore only the physical world than one expect to get only physical results. But does that mean that the world is only made up of the physical?. I contend  that science neglected a whole area of reality that put in the mix would not necessarily favour physicalism. This shift has already started in consciousness research where a physical explanation of it is still lacking. Hence the biasness towards physicalism that I am talking about in science. 

 

 

Should have said in swansont reply that data provided was not in my favour at least as it stand.for the mind

Edited June 2 by Luc Turpin
A need for more precision

[swansont]

30 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I have better than that and it is not in my favour, at least as it pertains to mind.

“The 2020 PhilPapers Survey of Anglophone academic philosophers’ views has just been published. On the philosophy of mind, physicalism (AKA materialism) remains the view of the majority, but only just, with 51.9% of philosophers professing to accept/lean towards physicalism about the mind. However, a very large minority of 32.1% align with non-physicalism about the mind (15.9% are undecided, accept an alternative to both, or think the question is too unclear to answer*). There was also a more specific question on ‘Consciousness’ which allows us to dig a bit deeper. Among those who accept/lean towards non-physicalism, approximately 3/4 are dualists and 1/4 are panpsychists.”

i need then to redact myself on his matter. 

https://conscienceandconsciousness.com/2021/11/01/materialism-remains-the-majority-view-but-only-just/

This is about philosophy and philosophers, not science and scientists.

[Luc Turpin]

56 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is about philosophy and philosophers, not science and scientists.

Doing much worse with scientists although this is old 2009

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. 
 

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/#:~:text=According to the poll%2C just,universal spirit or higher power.

The unbiased search continues and I am losing

 

22 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Doing much worse with scientists although this is old 2009

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. 
 

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/#:~:text=According to the poll%2C just,universal spirit or higher power.

The unbiased search continues and I am losing

 

This one is more in line with my expectations

But a recent survey published in the leading science journal Natureconclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding. 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didn’t respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The unbelief is far higher than the percentage among scientists in general, or in the whole population.

trying to get the exacy reference