Luc Turpin Posted June 7 Author Posted June 7 19 minutes ago, MSC said: Because Mordred is foccused on hard sciences where there is far more consensus and most of the debates that rage there are about what new data in the future will say and less about what old data says. Meanwhile I'm more engaged with the social sciences where not only biases but agendas influence the fields greatly, especially in psychology. I suspected that this was the case.
Luc Turpin Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 This is the additional information that I was able to gather as there is not much available on bias in science and the scientific materialistic dogma. It is mostly observational, but how many need to see Big Foot before it gets embarrassing to say that he absolutely does not exist. 1- A postmodern criticism of P.S. Churchland’s claims regarding materialism. The abstract of the article Modern Manifestations of Materialism: A Legacy of the Enlightenment Discourse states that: “Neurobiological explanations of behavior are used increasingly in the place of psychological explanations. This trend is indicative of the rise in popularity of materialism. " In order for Churchland to maintain her materialist position, she must assume a transparency in scientific method, an assumption which is a legacy of Enlightenment philosophy. However, many postmodern philosophers including M. Heidegger (1962, and 1977) and H. G. Gadamer (1995) have questioned this assumed transparency of method”. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-05471-004 2- From the abstract “Materialism and Selection Bias: Political Psychology from a Radical Constructivist Perspective” “Political psychology rests on the assumption of the existence of a world outside and independent of consciousness. This ontological materialism is hardly spoken of within the field, as it is an unchallenged assumption among most psychologists and social scientists, including political scientists. However, the materialist paradigm frames research designs, the interpretation of data and theory building.” “……the choice of a certain approach to answer a research question rests on the deeply ingrained beliefs of researchers” “These beliefs are usually not part of research presentations even though they have tremendous influence on the results of the whole research process. Recipients use these necessarily biased research results as building blocks for the construction of their own realities.” “….instead of coming closer to any kind of an “objective” understanding of political attitudes, in political psychology we cannot help but invent new stories about the (political) world as long as our beliefs consciously or unconsciously influence our decision making in theorizing and research practice.” “The article is a description of how a researcher’s subjective perception and construction of the (social) world has consequences for the complete research process. https://constructivist.info/16/3/327 3- Jon Mills on page 5 of a document titled “Five Dangers of Materialism” states the following: “Contemporary theories in cognitive science and the philosophy of mind lend burgeoning support to the materialist position regarding the mind-body problem. That is, naturalism, physicalism, and material monism are the preferred theories that explain the relationship between mental processes and physical brain states. Although dualist and spiritualist approaches offer counter arguments to materialism (Vender, 1994; Warner, 1994), the preponderance of current research in the philosophical, natural, and social sciences concludes that mental states are nothing but physical states (Armstrong, 1968; Bickle, 1998; Churchland, 1981, Dennet,1991; Dretske, 1995; Searle, 1994). From these accounts, mind is brain.” https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6077171f228eb219180f62e9/t/60a47c900f22b814725f6d73/1621392530260/Five+Dangers+of+Materialism.pdf 4- In “Beyond Scientific Materialism: Toward a Transcendent Theory of Consciousness”, author Barus Imants describes some of the pathways that may lead us beyond a materialistic worldview. I think that this will be cause for a lively debate with the physicists participating in our forum. “Analysis of the social-cognitive substrate of scientific activity reveals that much of science functions in an inauthentic mode whereby a materialist world view constrains the authentic practice of science. But materialism cannot explain matter, as evidenced by empirical data concerning the nature of physical manifestation. Nor, then, should materialism be the basis for our interpretation of consciousness. It is time to move beyond scientific materialism and develop transcendent theories of consciousness. Such theories should minimally meet the following criteria: they should be based on all of the usual empirical data concerning consciousness, including altered states of consciousness; they should take into account data about anomalous phenomena and transcendent states of consciousness; they should address the issue of existential meaning and provide soteriological guidance; and they should be consistent with the most accurate theories of physical manifestation, such as relativistic quantum field theories. Speculating within a quantum-theoretic context, consciousness could be inserted as a primitive element into reality by providing a role for intention in the selection process of observables, the collapse of the state vector, or the ordering of quantum fluctuations. But consciousness could be more fundamental, in the sense of a deep consciousness coinciding with a pre-physical substrate, from which intention shapes both mental experience and physical manifestation. If any significance can be attached to the mathematical formalism of relativistic quantum field theories, perhaps creation and annihilation operators, which determine the fluctuations of a quantum field, can metaphorically be regarded as the avenue through which intention acts. Morphic fields within the pre-physical substrate could hold in place patterns that shape the reality that we experience. Among such morphic fields could be ones that correspond to the world view of scientism. By becoming authentic, one could break from such constraints and consider alternative possibilities that can include various forms of radical transformation.” Author: Baruss, Imants Source: Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 17, Numbers 7-8, 2010, pp. 213-231(19) Publisher: Imprint Academic https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2010/00000017/f0020007/art00012 5- On my contention that life cannot be reduced purely to the physical, Jesse M. Mulder in the abstract of “A Vital Challenge to Materialism” states that: “Life poses a threat to materialism. To understand the phenomena of animate nature, we make use of a teleological form of explanation that is peculiar to biology, of explanations in terms of what I call the ‘vital categories’ – and this holds even for accounts of underlying physico-chemical ‘mechanisms’. The materialist claims that this teleological form of explanation does not capture what is metaphysically fundamental, whereas her preferred physical form of explanation does. In this essay, I do three things. (1) I argue that the ‘vital categories’, such as life form and life-process, do not reduce to the ‘physical categories’ and show that there are no grounds for the materialist's metaphysically limiting claim; (2) I sketch a positive view on how vital and physical explanations can both apply to a given phenomenon, and on how they interrelate; and (3) I show that this view meshes nicely with evolutionary theory, despite being committed to a form of ‘biological essentialism’. Philosophy , Volume 91 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 153 - 18 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/vital-challenge-to-materialism/42296441632B6DC3FC77B61E5268E70C 6- A book preview of “A Skeptic’s Faith, Why Scientific Materialism Cannot be the Whole Truth” by Charles Siegel https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=62ywEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT5&dq=bias+science+materialism&ots=epLVizXaRC&sig=-fJXBYxQUkVgwqN_OhwDguUWtE4#v=onepage&q=bias%20science%20materialism&f=false 7-In “Notes Toward Stamping on the Corpse of Scientific Materialism” by Gary Allen states that: Science and its aura constitute the pervasive, unavoidable view and methodology of modernity. We cannot understand our era without considering its dominant presence. How we receive and convey information, transport our bodies, nourish ourselves, heal, fight our wars, the objects we possess and the clothes we wear, indeed, much of what we think bears its seal. We live within a paradigm that science--consciously or not--has generated. Accordingly, the accreted ideology of “scientific materialism” bounds and determines what is real and what is not, and shapes our perceptual universe. Science is a series of methods aimed at exploring the natural world and inventing useful tools. It generates a changing fabric of theories about the origin, nature, and functions of that world. It’s often animated by an open-ended spirit of inquisitiveness and delight in discovery. Unfortunately, science as the study of the natural world--sometimes for scientists and very much for modern global society--easily slips into scientific materialism, a theory that only the natural world truly exists. Rather than simply being “truth:’ it’s instead a dogma fabricated out of scientific data by its proponents that stands as the modern paradigm for reality. Insidiously, this view filters our perceptual world and obstructs the mind’s potential. Hence “scientific materialism” describes a body of beliefs that determines how we think and what we value; how we regard our bodies, our relationships, our planet; what makes for a valid therapeutic response or an invalid one; even what kind of information we allow in and what we block out. It’s a theory of reality that constructs our universe. Scientific materialism begins with scientists themselves, some of whom have proclaimed the material world as the sole reality and view science as the only reliable source of knowledge about it. While it isn’t a ‘school,’ exactly, it has been advanced by some scientists as an encompassing way to view reality and been absorbed into modern philosophical schools like 20th century French deconstructionism. Scientific materialists can be quite definitive in their rejection of any kind of validity especially to religious views of reality. While we certainly can=t label all scientists as materialists because they individually reflect a range of philosophical positions and beliefs, a life in science doesn’t seem to correlate well with religious belief. Virtually none of the Nobel Prize winners in science, the majority of them American and European, have identified themselves as Christian. A 1998 survey of the most accomplished American scientists, those elected to the National Academy of Sciences, found only 7% ‘believe in a personal God,’ though 40% of American scientists generally would say they do. Biologists are apparently more likely to be atheists than physical scientists. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins remarks how ‘American scientists are less religious than the American public generally, and that the most distinguished scientists are the least religious of all.’5 https://garyallenantarabhavapress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NOTES-TOWARD-STAMPING-ON-THE-CORPSE-OF-SCIENTIFIC-MATERIALISM-for-website.pdf
swansont Posted June 10 Posted June 10 5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: This is the additional information that I was able to gather as there is not much available on bias in science and the scientific materialistic dogma. One might infer from this that it’s not a crisis Also, you wrote “science” instead of “cognitive science” but your examples do not give support to this issue outside that area (and political psychology? You’re really desperate for citations) 5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: It is mostly observational, but how many need to see Big Foot before it gets embarrassing to say that he absolutely does not exist. At least one more. It’s not the number, it’s the credibility. Eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable in legal proceedings, because it’s often not reliable. Eyes can be deceived, memory is fluid, and, given your thesis here, you should be painfully aware that confirmation bias plays a role in. Bigfoot doesn’t exist until there is credible evidence that it does. Just like the unicorn and pegasus. A platypus seems fantastic but we can actually capture them. Other fantastic beasts leave behind skeletons. Actual physical evidence. —- Approaching this from another tack: if one wants to consider dualist and spiritualist approaches, or altered states of consciousness, what successes can you point to that use these to explain the world around us?
CharonY Posted June 10 Posted June 10 Not to mention that at best all the examples can be put into the psychology section, which is not really part of natural sciences (there are overlaps, but for a big chunk their methodologies align more with social sciences). It surely sounds like an extreme form of selective reading and wild extrapolation here. A geographer got the bend of a local river wrong. I am sure that also applies to quantum mechanics.
Luc Turpin Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 3 hours ago, swansont said: Also, you wrote “science” instead of “cognitive science” but your examples do not give support to this issue outside that area At least one more. It’s not the number, it’s the credibility. Eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable in legal proceedings, because it’s often not reliable. Eyes can be deceived, memory is fluid, and, given your thesis here, you should be painfully aware that confirmation bias plays a role in. Bigfoot doesn’t exist until there is credible evidence that it does. Just like the unicorn and pegasus. A platypus seems fantastic but we can actually capture them. Other fantastic beasts leave behind skeletons. Actual physical evidence. —- Approaching this from another tack: if one wants to consider dualist and spiritualist approaches, or altered states of consciousness, what successes can you point to that use these to explain the world around us? 1- Agree that it is mostly cognitive science, not science in general. I will pursue my search. 2- Big foot was used as a metaphor to demonstrate that I am not the only one thinking about bias in science. 3- Again, big foot does not exist and bias towards materialism does leave physical evidence. 4- Good,I need to think before giving an answer. As a preliminary answer, I would say that a the core of altered stats of consciousness, there is oneness in everything and purpose to all of this, two attributes that may have given more social cohesion and a will to survive. Also, I would like to obtain your opinion from you and other physicists on this passage (e.g. is there a possibility that this could even be remotely true): and they should be consistent with the most accurate theories of physical manifestation, such as relativistic quantum field theories. Speculating within a quantum-theoretic context, consciousness could be inserted as a primitive element into reality by providing a role for intention in the selection process of observables, the collapse of the state vector, or the ordering of quantum fluctuations. But consciousness could be more fundamental, in the sense of a deep consciousness coinciding with a pre-physical substrate, from which intention shapes both mental experience and physical manifestation. If any significance can be attached to the mathematical formalism of relativistic quantum field theories, perhaps creation and annihilation operators, which determine the fluctuations of a quantum field, can metaphorically be regarded as the avenue through which intention acts. Morphic fields within the pre-physical substrate could hold in place patterns that shape the reality that we experience. Among such morphic fields could be ones that correspond to the world view of scientism. By becoming authentic, one could break from such constraints and consider alternative possibilities that can include various forms of radical transformation.” 3 hours ago, CharonY said: Not to mention that at best all the examples can be put into the psychology section, which is not really part of natural sciences (there are overlaps, but for a big chunk their methodologies align more with social sciences). It surely sounds like an extreme form of selective reading and wild extrapolation here. A geographer got the bend of a local river wrong. I am sure that also applies to quantum mechanics. More so in cognitive science than psychology, but even so, what is wrong with psychology? Is this not a form of bias at play? Could not be an extreme form of selective reading as I found not even one article saying that there was no bias in science or that materialism was not a dogma in science. As for wild extrapolations, are you not at least a bit surprised that even others share my cockamamie views of consciousness ? Agree that a bend in the qm river might be wrong.
iNow Posted June 11 Posted June 11 10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: there is not much available on bias in science and the scientific materialistic dogma. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Agree that it is mostly cognitive science, not science in general. I will pursue my search. On 6/2/2024 at 4:27 PM, iNow said: This looks like another example of you putting the cart before the horse and having a preconceived view or conclusion THEN seeking out and cherry picking data which seems to support it (instead of looking at the entire landscape of data and letting the data inform / alter your views). 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: I found not even one article saying that there was no bias in science As evidenced right here in this thread, nobody is making that claim, so maybe this too is another example of: 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: an extreme form of selective reading
Luc Turpin Posted June 11 Author Posted June 11 9 hours ago, iNow said: There is a significant number of observational articles on bias in science and the materialism dogma. I have not encourntered any observational articles saying that the is no bias nor materialism dogma in science. I have come to the conclusion that there is a materialism bias in science after reading a significant amount of scientific papers, publications and studies over decades. I have not come to this forum saying this and then finding a few articles to back my claim. At the very least, you must acknowledge that I am not the only holding up this view. And it is an easy form of an extreme selective reading. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1- From the abstract and introduction of “Bias and Values in Scientific Research” by Torsten Wilholt. “When interests and preferences of researchers or their sponsors cause bias in experimental design, data interpretation or dissemination of research results, we normally think of it as an epistemic shortcoming. But as a result of the debate on science and values, the idea that all ‘extra-scientific’ influences on research could be singled out and separated from pure science is now widely believed to be an illusion. I argue that nonetheless, there are cases in which research is rightfully regarded as epistemologically deficient due to the influence of preferences on its outcomes. I present examples from biomedical research and offer an analysis in terms of social epistemology.” “Bias is becoming increasingly recognized as a serious problem in many areas of scientific research. Of particular concern are cases in which research results seem directly to reflect the preferences and interests of certain actors involved in the research process. Troubling examples of this have been identified, especially in privately funded research and in policy-related areas.” “Intuitively (and traditionally) it seems clear that the suggested kind of bias constitutes outright epistemic failure. But philosophers of science have begun to realize that the ideal of pure and value-free science is at best just that—an ideal—and that all scientific practice involves all kinds of value-judgments. While some philosophers have sought to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable influences of values on science, efforts to draw this distinction in a principled way have proven immensely difficult (see Sect. 6). So why should not some values that inform scientific research be, for example, shareholder values?” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039368108001155 2- From “Philosophy of Biology: Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid” by Fredrik Andersen, Reni Lill Anjum and Elena Rocca Scientists seek to eliminate all forms of bias from their research. However, all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research. Here, we argue that since these 'philosophical biases' cannot be avoided, they need to be debated critically by scientists and philosophers of science. https://elifesciences.org/articles/44929 3- From the abstract of “Heuristics and biases: The science of decision-making by Steve Dale A heuristic is a word from the Greek meaning ‘to discover’. It is an approach to problem-solving that takes one’s personal experience into account. Heuristics provide strategies to scrutinize a limited number of signals and/or alternative choices in decision-making. Heuristics diminish the work of retrieving and storing information in memory and of streamlining the decision-making process by reducing the amount of integrated information necessary in making the choice or passing judgement. However, whilst heuristics can speed up our problem-solving and decision-making processes, they can introduce errors and bias judgements. This article looks at commonly used heuristics and their human psychology origins. Understanding how heuristics work can give us better insight into our personal biases and influences and (perhaps) lead to better problem-solving and decision-making. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0266382115592536 4- From “Molecular Bias” by John P. A. Loannidis Bias is ubiquitous in research. The advent of the molecular era provides a unique opportunity to study the consequences of bias with large-scale empirical evidence accumulated in the massive data produced by the current discovery-oriented scientific effort, rather than just with theoretical speculations and constructs. Here I discuss some empirical evidence about manifestations of bias in molecular epidemiology. Bias may manifest as either heterogeneity or as deviation from the true estimates. The failure to translate molecular knowledge and the failure to replicate information are some typical hallmarks of bias at action. The acquired knowledge about the behaviour and manifestations of bias in molecular fields can be transferred back also to more traditional fields of epidemiology and medical research. Getting rid of false claims of the past is at least as important as producing new scientific discoveries. In many fields, the observed effects sizes that circulate as established knowledge are practically estimating only the net bias that has operated in the field all along. Issues of plausibility (in particular biological plausibility), replication, and credibility that form the theoretical basis of epidemiology and etiological inference can now be approached with large-scale empirical data. 5- From “Cognitive Bias and Blindness: A Global Survey of Forensic Science Examiners by Jeff Kukucka, Saul M. Kassin, Patricia A. Zapf Exposure to irrelevant contextual information prompts confirmation-biased judgments of forensic science evidence (Kassin, Dror, & Kukucka, 2013). Nevertheless, some forensic examiners appear to believe that blind testing is unnecessary. To assess forensic examiners’ beliefs about the scope and nature of cognitive bias, we surveyed 403 experienced examiners from 21 countries. Overall, examiners regarded their judgments as nearly infallible and showed only a limited understanding and appreciation of cognitive bias. Most examiners believed they are immune to bias or can reduce bias through mere willpower, and fewer than half supported blind testing. Furthermore, many examiners showed a bias blind spot (Pronin, Lin, & Ross, 2002), acknowledging bias in other domains but not their own, and in other examiners but not themselves. These findings underscore the necessity of procedural reforms that blind forensic examiners to potentially biasing information, as is commonplace in other branches of science. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211368117300323 6- From the results and conclusion sections of “Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research by John P.A. loannidis Forty bias terms were used in the title or abstract of more than 100 articles each. Pseudo-inclusion clustering identified 252 clusters of terms. The clusters were organized into macroscopic maps that cover a continuum of research fields. The resulting maps highlight which types of biases tend to co-occur and may need to be considered together and what biases are commonly encountered and discussed in specific fields. Most of the common bias terms have had continuous use over time since their introduction, and some (in particular confounding, selection bias, response bias, and publication bias) show increased usage through time. This systematic mapping offers a dynamic classification of biases in biomedical investigation and related fields and can offer insights for the multifaceted aspects of bias. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0895435610000223 7- From the abstract of “Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review by Samir Haffar MD, Fateh Bazerbachi MD, Hassan Murad MD, MPH Various types of bias and confounding have been described in the biomedical literature that can affect a study before, during, or after the intervention has been delivered. The peer review process can also introduce bias. A compelling ethical and moral rationale necessitates improving the peer review process. A double-blind peer review system is supported on equipoise and fair-play principles. Triple- and quadruple-blind systems have also been described but are not commonly used. The open peer review system introduces “Skin in the Game” heuristic principles for both authors and reviewers and has a small favorable effect on the quality of published reports. In this exposition, we present, on the basis of a comprehensive literature search of PubMed from its inception until October 20, 2017, various possible mechanisms by which the peer review process can distort research results, and we discuss the evidence supporting different strategies that may mitigate this bias. It is time to improve the quality, transparency, and accountability of the peer review system.
swansont Posted June 11 Posted June 11 15 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 2- Big foot was used as a metaphor to demonstrate that I am not the only one thinking about bias in science. 3- Again, big foot does not exist and bias towards materialism does leave physical evidence. One might wonder why you don't use a more relevant metaphor, or, better yet, actual examples of bias as opposed to providing quotes complaining about bias. "I think there's bias, and Charlie, Phil and Louise think so so" is far less compelling to me than "here's some research that clearly shows <a form of bias> and we know this because subsequent research come up with different results when the bias was mitigated" Preferably where the relevant examples are from all areas of science.
iNow Posted June 11 Posted June 11 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: There is a significant number of observational articles on bias in science and the materialism dogma. Did those articles lead you to your conclusion, or did your conclusion lead you to those articles?
Luc Turpin Posted June 11 Author Posted June 11 1 hour ago, swansont said: One might wonder why you don't use a more relevant metaphor, or, better yet, actual examples of bias as opposed to providing quotes complaining about bias. "I think there's bias, and Charlie, Phil and Louise think so so" is far less compelling to me than "here's some research that clearly shows <a form of bias> and we know this because subsequent research come up with different results when the bias was mitigated" Preferably where the relevant examples are from all areas of science. 1 hour ago, swansont said: One might wonder why you don't use a more relevant metaphor, or, better yet, actual examples of bias as opposed to providing quotes complaining about bias. "I think there's bias, and Charlie, Phil and Louise think so so" is far less compelling to me than "here's some research that clearly shows <a form of bias> and we know this because subsequent research come up with different results when the bias was mitigated" Preferably where the relevant examples are from all areas of science. 1- You brought Big Foot into the discussion and I tried to turn it into a metaphor, but I agree with you that it was not my best attempt at a metaphor. 2- It's not Charlie, Phil and Louise that think so, its scientists investigating their relevant field of study. So all of them including me are "totally" wrong about it? Those that say never are most always wrong. They are more blind than others to bias. Although, I believe that in physics, there is much less opportunity of being so. 3- I gave seven examples outside of the field of cognitive sciences (see my response to INow), with some researching the topic and finding bias. What else is required? 1 hour ago, iNow said: Did those articles lead you to your conclusion, or did your conclusion lead you to those articles? As I indicated, its through reading many scientific articles, research results and papers over the years, that I was convinced by them that there is most probably bias in science. All 24 articles that I could find currently were introduced to this forum as examples of what is out there presently on the topic. They did not affect nor even reinforce my impression that there is bias in science. It is regretful that I did not keep all of the articles and research that I encountered over the years that convinced me of such bias, but I did not. I agree also that physics is much more impermeable to bias than other scientific disciplines. And reiterate, there must be research out there that shows no bias in science, but personally, over the years and during my brief research for this forum, I have not encountered even a single one (though I encountered many that said there was bias and offered mitigation strategies without finding out if those measures were effective). I even typed science isn't biased to see what would come about and got bias avoidance measures or titles like Science is not biased, we are! Which is what I have been saying all along. To me, someone who says he is not biased is only fooling himself, and this personal biasness is brought into play in the act and art of science.
Phi for All Posted June 11 Posted June 11 24 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 3- I gave seven examples outside of the field of cognitive sciences (see my response to INow), with some researching the topic and finding bias. What else is required? You asked earlier why this topic seems to keep circling back to the beginning. You give examples of bias in science, and each example shows how that bias was dealt with, or its implications in the respective field. These are indeed evidence of bias in science. But then you make the mistake of assuming such bias is rampant, that it goes undetected all the time. This is what you can't provide evidence for, but you keep making the claim. How can you find evidence of something you claim is being ignored? How can you detect what isn't being detected? THAT is why this topic goes around in circles, and why you keep making the assumption that this bias has run amok among the community. There is a difference between bias and systemic prejudgement.
Luc Turpin Posted June 11 Author Posted June 11 1 minute ago, Phi for All said: You asked earlier why this topic seems to keep circling back to the beginning. You give examples of bias in science, and each example shows how that bias was dealt with, or its implications in the respective field. These are indeed evidence of bias in science. But then you make the mistake of assuming such bias is rampant, that it goes undetected all the time. This is what you can't provide evidence for, but you keep making the claim. How can you find evidence of something you claim is being ignored? How can you detect what isn't being detected? THAT is why this topic goes around in circles, and why you keep making the assumption that this bias has run amok among the community. There is a difference between bias and systemic prejudgement. I am not the one saying that this topic is circling back to the beginning. What I said is that I did not understand why folks were saying that we were running around in circle. I feel that some progress is being made, at least in the comprehension of the subject matter. Bias is not "rampant" nor "running amok" in science, it's just there because you have people involved in science and they bring their values and beliefs with them and the process tries to eliminate it. This is better said by Fredrik Andersen, Reni Lill Anjum and Elena Rocca in" Philosophy of Biology: Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid." Here is the excerpt "....all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research". I would add to the list materialism and physicalism. What I am saying is even with bias, science is conducted in a progressing manner with very important and relevant findings being made all the time. That is good. However, my contention is that with those biases always in play, science is going in a single direction and forced to ignore other possible avenues of scientific investigation. It "biasly" (inventing a word here) leaves out things that should be included. Finally, it is incorrect to say that I have not given examples of the pervasive and permanent nature of bias. From the abstract of "Bias and Values in Scientific Research by Torsten Wilholt - "But as a result of the debate on science and values, the idea that all ‘extra-scientific’ influences on research could be singled out and separated from pure science is now widely believed to be an illusion.
swansont Posted June 11 Posted June 11 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Here is the excerpt "....all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research". I would add to the list materialism and physicalism. And I asked for you to name successful results from following an alternate path. The bias here, AFAICT, is the bias of using successful methods. 3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: It's not Charlie, Phil and Louise that think so, its scientists investigating their relevant field of study. Jeff Kukucka is an Associate Professor of Psychology Steve Dale’s affiliation is collabor8now; no expertise is given John P.A. loannidis has expertise in medical research, not science The authors in citation 7 are MDs. 3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: And reiterate, there must be research out there that shows no bias in science Why do you think that this is the case?
TheVat Posted June 11 Posted June 11 (edited) 4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Here is the excerpt "....all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research". I would add to the list materialism and physicalism. What I am saying is even with bias, science is conducted in a progressing manner with very important and relevant findings being made all the time. That is good. However, my contention is that with those biases always in play, science is going in a single direction and forced to ignore other possible avenues of scientific investigation. So you are saying that philosophical bias has some responsibility in scientists steering clear of what is often called fringe science? I am wondering: could this avoidance also be feasibility challenges? How would you propose to do an inquiry into the nature of ghosts or disembodied minds? It would seem that practical obstacles, other than bias, present themselves. Being nonphysical puts quite a damper on observation, measurement and the other method tools available. I've noticed you not mentioning bias in regard to our massive apathy about studying fairies. Tinkerbell seems to provide little opportunity for research, and almost everyone over age ten seems to understand that, as a discipline, Tinkerbell Studies is a dead end. Edited June 11 by TheVat 1
Luc Turpin Posted June 11 Author Posted June 11 2 hours ago, swansont said: And I asked for you to name successful results from following an alternate path. The bias here, AFAICT, is the bias of using successful methods. Jeff Kukucka is an Associate Professor of Psychology Steve Dale’s affiliation is collabor8now; no expertise is given John P.A. loannidis has expertise in medical research, not science The authors in citation 7 are MDs. Why do you think that this is the case? 1- I have a few holistic studies in mind; will need time. 2- Never said that they were unsuccefful. 3 to 6 - So, does that change anything on reporting about bias? 7- Because they are more open to talk about bias than other science fields? 50 minutes ago, TheVat said: So you are saying that philosophical bias has some responsibility in scientists steering clear of what is often called fringe science? I am wondering: could this avoidance also be feasibility challenges? How would you propose to do an inquiry into the nature of ghosts or disembodied minds? It would seem that practical obstacles, other than bias, present themselves. Being nonphysical puts quite a damper on observation, measurement and the other method tools available. I've noticed you not mentioning bias in regard to our massive apathy about studying fairies. Tinkerbell seems to provide little opportunity for research, and almost everyone over age ten seems to understand that, as a discipline, Tinkerbell Studies is a dead end. Why turn to ridicule; you are much smarter than that. A last batch of studies for those still interested in the topic. From «Herding, social influences and behavioural bias in scientific research: Simple awareness of the hidden pressures and beliefs that influence our thinking can help to preserve objectivity (don’t accuse me of sampling bias as this one seems to have a simple remedy for it; from Michell Baddele “The mission of scientific research is to understand and to discover the cause or mechanism behind an observed phenomenon. The main tool employed by scientists is the scientific method: formulate a hypothesis that could explain an observation, develop testable predictions, gather data or design experiments to test these predictions and, based on the result, accept, reject or refine the hypothesis. In practice, however, the path to understanding is often not straightforward: uncertainty, insufficient information, unreliable data or flawed analysis can make it challenging to untangle good theories, hypotheses and evidence from bad, though these problems can be overcome with careful experimental design, objective data analysis and/or robust statistics. Yet, no matter how good the experiment or how clean the data, we still need to account for the human factor: researchers are subject to unconscious bias and might genuinely believe that their analysis is wholly objective when, in fact, it is not. Bias can distort the evolution of knowledge if scientists are reluctant to accept an alternative explanation for their observations, or even fudge data or their analysis to support their preconceived beliefs. This article highlights some of the biases that have the potential to mislead academic research. Among them, heuristics and biases generally and social influences in particular, can have profoundly negative consequences for the wider world, especially if misleading research findings are used to guide public policy or affect decision‐making in medicine and beyond. https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.201540637 From « Do Pressures to Publish Increases Scientists’ Bias? An Empirical Support for US States Data by Danielle Fanelli The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments. This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of positive results in a large random sample of papers with a corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased when controlling for state's per capita R&D expenditure and for study characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology. Although the confounding effect of institutions' prestige could not be excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the most clever and successful in their experiments), these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists' productivity but also their bias. The same phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high. From the abstract of “The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others by Emily Pronin, Daniel Y. Lin and Lee RossView Three studies suggest that individuals see the existence and operation of cognitive and motivational biases much more in others than in themselves. Study 1 provides evidence from three surveys that people rate themselves as less subject to various biases than the “average American,” classmates in a seminar, and fellow airport travelers. Data from the third survey further suggest that such claims arise from the interplay among availability biases and self-enhancement motives. Participants in one follow-up study who showed the better-than-average bias insisted that their self-assessments were accurate and objective even after reading a description of how they could have been affected by the relevant bias. Participants in a final study reported their peer’s self-serving attributions regarding test performance to be biased but their own similarly self-serving attributions to be free of bias. The relevance of these phenomena to naïve realism and to conflict, misunderstanding, and dispute resolution is discussed. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167202286008 From abstract of “Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada by Robyn Tamblyn, Nadyne Girard, Christina J. Qian and James Hanley. This also provides solutions to funding bias. BACKGROUND: Peer review is used to determine what research is funded and published, yet little is known about its effectiveness, and it is suspected that there may be biases. We investigated the variability of peer review and factors influencing ratings of grant applications. METHODS: We evaluated all grant applications submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research between 2012 and 2014. The contribution of application, principal applicant and reviewer characteristics to overall application score was assessed after adjusting for the applicant’s scientific productivity. RESULTS: Among 11 624 applications, 66.2% of principal applicants were male and 64.1% were in a basic science domain. We found a significant nonlinear association between scientific productivity and final application score that differed by applicant gender and scientific domain, with higher scores associated with past funding success and h-index and lower scores associated with female applicants and those in the applied sciences. Significantly lower application scores were also associated with applicants who were older, evaluated by female reviewers only (v. male reviewers only, −0.05 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.08 to −0.02) or reviewers in scientific domains different from the applicant’s (−0.07 points, 95% CI −0.11 to −0.03). Significantly higher application scores were also associated with reviewer agreement in application score (0.23 points, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.26), the existence of reviewer conflicts (0.09 points, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.11), larger budget requests (0.01 points per $100 000, 95% CI 0.007 to 0.02), and resubmissions (0.15 points, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.17). In addition, reviewers with high expertise were more likely than those with less expertise to provide higher scores to applicants with higher past success rates (0.18 points, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.28). INTERPRETATION: There is evidence of bias in peer review of operating grants that is of sufficient magnitude to change application scores from fundable to nonfundable. This should be addressed by training and policy changes in research funding https://www.cmaj.ca/content/190/16/E489
swansont Posted June 12 Posted June 12 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 2- Never said that they were unsuccefful. But your position suggests that you should use other methods. What is the reasoning behind this? 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 3 to 6 - So, does that change anything on reporting about bias? We were discussing science, not medicine. Your citations could easily be interpreted as medical folks should be better versed in scientific rigor. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 7- Because they are more open to talk about bias than other science fields? How does that lead to the conclusion that there should be reports that no bias exists? Being more open should increase the reports of bias. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Why turn to ridicule; you are much smarter than that. This is deflection; you’ve not answered the question or addressed the point. 1
Luc Turpin Posted June 12 Author Posted June 12 10 hours ago, swansont said: But your position suggests that you should use other methods. What is the reasoning behind this? We were discussing science, not medicine. Your citations could easily be interpreted as medical folks should be better versed in scientific rigor. How does that lead to the conclusion that there should be reports that no bias exists? Being more open should increase the reports of bias. This is deflection; you’ve not answered the question or addressed the point. 1- My position is to use other methods along with the one already in use and my reasoning behind this is to capture the part of reality that is not currently being captured by the standardized methods. 2- Is physics science? Then see below 3- Its' not who does it, but if it is done right? 4- Is physics open to address bias? see below 5- Then I will respond _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bias in Research Research bias results from any deviation from the truth, causing distorted results and wrong conclusions. Bias can occur at any phase of your research, including during data collection, data analysis, interpretation, or publication. Research bias can occur in both qualitative and quantitative research. Understanding research bias is important for several reasons. Bias exists in all research, across research designs, and is difficult to eliminate. Bias can occur at any stage of the research process. Bias impacts the validity and reliability of your findings, leading to misinterpretation of data. It is almost impossible to conduct a study without some degree of research bias. It’s crucial for you to be aware of the potential types of bias, so you can minimize them. https://www.scribbr.com/category/research-bias/ Bias in Physics 1- From “A selected history of expectation bias in physics by Monwhea Jeng (trying to obtain full text) “The beliefs of physicists can bias their results toward their expectations in a number of ways. We survey a variety of historical cases of expectation bias in observations, experiments, and calculations.” https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/74/7/578/1056232/A-selected-history-of-expectation-bias-in-physics?redirectedFrom=fulltext 2- From “Quantum Physics is Fine, Human Bias About Reality is the Real Problem by Ethan Siegel “The idea that there is a fundamental, objective, observer-independent reality is an assumption with no evidence behind it, just thousands upon thousands of years of our intuition telling us "it should be so."” “But science does not exist to show that reality conforms to our biases and prejudices and opinions; it seeks to uncover the nature of reality irrespective of our biases. If we really want to understand quantum mechanics, the goal should be more about letting go of our biases and embracing what the Universe tells us about itself.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/09/11/the-most-unpopular-interpretation-of-quantum-physics-may-make-all-the-others-irrelevant/ 3- From post ‘Check your Bases" from Sabine Hossennfelder Physics World recently interviewed the current director of CERN, Fabiola Gianotti. When asked how particle physicists address group-think, Gianotti explains instead why some research avenues require large communities. You would think that sufficiently much has been written about cognitive biases and logical fallacies that even particle physicists took note, but at least the ones I deal with have no clue. If I ask them what measures they take to avoid cognitive biases when evaluating the promise of a research direction, they will either mention techniques to prevent biased data-analysis (different thing entirely), or they will deny that they even have biases (thereby documenting the very problem whose existence they deny). Here is a response I got from a particle physicist when I pointed out that Gianotti did not answer the question about group think: (This person then launched an ad-hominem attack at me and eventually deleted their comment. In the hope that this deletion documents some sliver of self-insight, I decided to remove identifying information.) Here is another particle physicist commenting on the same topic, demonstrating just how much these scientists overrate their rationality: It is beyond me why scientists are still not required to have basic training in the sociology of science, cognitive biases, and decision making in groups. Such knowledge is necessary to properly evaluate information. Scientists cannot correctly judge the promise of research directions unless they are aware how their opinions are influenced by the groups they are part of. https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/check-your-biases.html 4- Another one by Sabine Hossenfelder, “Particle physicist: Science is suffering from “baked in” bias “For the past 15 years, I have worked in the foundations of physics, a field which has not seen progress for decades. What happened 40 years ago is that theorists in my discipline became convinced the laws of nature must be mathematically beautiful in specific ways. By these standards, which are still used today, a good theory should be simple, and have symmetries, and it should not have numbers that are much larger or smaller than one, the latter referred to as “naturalness.” Based on such arguments from beauty, they predicted that protons should be able to decay. Experiments have looked for this since the 1980s, but so far not a single proton has been caught in the act. This has ruled out many symmetry-based theories. But it is easy to amend these theories so that they evade experimental constraints, hence papers continue to be written about them. People said it was just the maturity of the field. But this doesn’t explain the stunning profusion of blundered predictions. It’s not like we predicted one particle that wasn’t there. We predicted hundreds of particles, and fields, and new symmetries, and tiny black holes, and extra-dimensions (in various shapes, and sizes, and widths), none of which were there. No, and crackpot cosmology around the non-evidence-based multiverse has begun to play too big a role in the science news cycle as a result.” “Of course I am not the first to figure beauty doesn’t equal truth. Indeed, most physicists would surely agree that using aesthetic criteria to select theories is not good scientific practice. They do it anyway. Because all their colleagues do it. And because they all do it, this research will get cited, will get published, and then it will be approved by review panels which take citations and publications as a measure of quality. The challenge is simpler than sometimes supposed. People must be willing to accept a truth they don’t like. If the universe is not as we would like it to be, imagining a different one is fun and maybe profitable, maybe aesthetically pleasing. But it is not science.” https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/particle-physicist-science-is-suffering-from-baked-in-bias/ 5- From “Naïve Physics and Quantum Mechanics: The Cognitive Bias of Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation” by Andrew SID Lang and Caleb J Lutz “We discuss the role that intuitive theories of physics play in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We compare and contrast naïve physics with quantum mechanics and argue that quantum mechanics is not just hard to understand but that it is difficult to believe, often appearing magical in nature. Quantum mechanics is often discussed in the context of "quantum weirdness" and quantum entanglement is known as "spooky action at a distance." This spookiness is more than just because quantum mechanics doesn't match everyday experience; it ruffles the feathers of our naïve physics cognitive module. In Everett's manyworlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, we preserve a form of deterministic thinking that can alleviate some of the perceived weirdness inherent in other interpretations of quantum mechanics, at the cost of having the universe split into parallel worlds at every quantum measurement. By examining the role cognitive modules play in interpreting quantum mechanics, we conclude that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics involves a cognitive bias not seen in the Copenhagen interpretation.” https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.06821 6- From “Is Physics Biased Against Alternative Possibilities? From the book New Approaches to Scientific Realism by Tomasz Placek The paper poses the question of whether physics contains some rules or interpretational principles that result in it being biased with regard to indeterminism (understood modally) and in favor of determinism. It identifies one rule of that sort with Hadamard-inspired principles of theory construction. It then describes four strategies that are used to guard determinism in the presence of non-unique solutions to a theory’s basic equations. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110664737-014/html?lang=en 7- From article “See No Bias, Hear No Bias, Speak for No Change" and I postulate that this gender bias carries into research or at least shows the whole field to be blinded towards bias. “A study of the attitudes of progressive, white, male physicists suggests that their inaction in confronting biases contributes significantly to the problem of inequality in physics research.” 14 hours ago, TheVat said: So you are saying that philosophical bias has some responsibility in scientists steering clear of what is often called fringe science? I am wondering: could this avoidance also be feasibility challenges? How would you propose to do an inquiry into the nature of ghosts or disembodied minds? It would seem that practical obstacles, other than bias, present themselves. Being nonphysical puts quite a damper on observation, measurement and the other method tools available. I've noticed you not mentioning bias in regard to our massive apathy about studying fairies. Tinkerbell seems to provide little opportunity for research, and almost everyone over age ten seems to understand that, as a discipline, Tinkerbell Studies is a dead end. Yes, philosophical bias has some responsibility in scientists steering clear of what you call fringe science and that I call phenomena part of reality that must be studied in order to have a fuller picture of reality. If I understand your question correctly, yes, this avoidance could be feasibly challenged. Are you aware that most "ghosts" apparitions are in houses with either a stream under the house of electrical towers close by; why is this? why could science not investigate this and get to the bottom of it? You can inquire into disembodied minds by untangling the part that is brain from the part that is mind. Some neuroscientists are doing this already (gave also names that were doing this in the past, but were ignored: Lashley, Persinger, Pietsch). Difficulties yes, but not obstacles. We built the Hadron collider for goodness’ sake to get at the core of matter-physics. Not true on observation, for example IANDS has thousands of reported NDE's ready for investigation. I will pass on fairies and Tinkerbell which were added to discredit not discuss the matter of bias in science.
TheVat Posted June 12 Posted June 12 38 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Are you aware that most "ghosts" apparitions are in houses with either a stream under the house of electrical towers close by; why is this? why could science not investigate this and get to the bottom of it? How are you aware of this? For you to know the reported correlation between streams/electrical towers and apparitions would suggest some scientists studied this, and got data that was inconclusive - that happens sometimes. Was this subject to peer review? Did the scientists check for black mold, where streams ran under the house? What about strong electrical fields having effects on the parietal region? Were demographic factors considered? (perhaps low income people live in cheaper, poorly maintained rentals more likely to have moisture problems or be near to electrical towers) Nothing in that example shouts disembodied minds, or suggests that as the first hypothesis, any more than the smudge on Becquerel's photo plate suggested he look for ghost rocks. I am not ridiculing, just trying too suggest that scientists choose testable hypotheses and with respect to the existing body of knowledge and Ockham's razor.
Luc Turpin Posted June 12 Author Posted June 12 6 minutes ago, TheVat said: How are you aware of this? For you to know the reported correlation between streams/electrical towers and apparitions would suggest some scientists studied this, and got data that was inconclusive - that happens sometimes. Was this subject to peer review? Did the scientists check for black mold, where streams ran under the house? What about strong electrical fields having effects on the parietal region? Were demographic factors considered? (perhaps low income people live in cheaper, poorly maintained rentals more likely to have moisture problems or be near to electrical towers) Nothing in that example shouts disembodied minds, or suggests that as the first hypothesis, any more than the smudge on Becquerel's photo plate suggested he look for ghost rocks. I am not ridiculing, just trying too suggest that scientists choose testable hypotheses and with respect to the existing body of knowledge and Ockham's razor. 1- I am aware of this because one lone scientist is trying to do research on this, while having to endure the backlash from the scientific community. He has no funds to pursue the investigation, cannot publish, let alone, have his research material peer reviewed. Black mold, parietal region and demographic factors need to be investigated as probable causes of "apparitions", but they are not, because..... 2- There is a growing body of evidence that is shouting out to be investigated on. It is data that does not entirely match up to the mind from brain theory. Again, we have been studying the brain for decades and still cannot figure out how flesh or chemicals or electrical pulses turn into consciousness. 3- There was no need for fairies and Tinkerbell in the discussion. Tell me how mind through brain is untestable? The body of knowledge is incomplete. It lacks a whole side of the story that is necessary to unlock the true nature of reality.
dimreepr Posted June 12 Posted June 12 22 hours ago, Phi for All said: There is a difference between bias and systemic prejudgement. Indeed. 48 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 3- There was no need for fairies and Tinkerbell in the discussion. Tell me how mind through brain is untestable? The body of knowledge is incomplete. It lacks a whole side of the story that is necessary to unlock the true nature of reality. At risk of being called a six year old, again... What you lack is a reasonable argument for why Tinkerbell doesn't live under a bridge...
Luc Turpin Posted June 12 Author Posted June 12 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: Indeed. At risk of being called a six year old, again... What you lack is a reasonable argument for why Tinkerbell doesn't live under a bridge... My argument is that science is biased towards a materialist view of the world, which is not necessary to conduct science and even hampers the full investigation of reality.
swansont Posted June 12 Posted June 12 2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: My argument is that science is biased towards a materialist view of the world, which is not necessary to conduct science and even hampers the full investigation of reality. Please define materialism
Luc Turpin Posted June 12 Author Posted June 12 1 hour ago, swansont said: Please define materialism Everything in the nature of reality is made up of only one substance, matter and that mind comes from matter
swansont Posted June 12 Posted June 12 17 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Everything in the nature of reality is made up of only one substance, matter and that mind comes from matter Once again, this is an issue of the mind, and you’re extrapolating to all of science. (Physics rejects the first part of this, BTW. Fundamental bosons are not considered matter. Pretty sure photons are part of reality)
Luc Turpin Posted June 12 Author Posted June 12 54 minutes ago, swansont said: Once again, this is an issue of the mind, and you’re extrapolating to all of science. (Physics rejects the first part of this, BTW. Fundamental bosons are not considered matter. Pretty sure photons are part of reality) Mind and the living which involves most if not all science disciplines. Then I think that you are talking about materialism’s close cousin, physicalism, which is matter-energy. It is still matter, energy and the laws of nature that rule the world.
Recommended Posts