Genady Posted October 23 Posted October 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, swansont said: Twenty seconds of Google reveals the source article, now that we have the author information https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2408.11065 The article: 2408.11065 The word 'bias' appears once in the article, in the following paragraph: Quote As with Zipf’s law in linguistics, the underlying mechanisms that lead to the observed patterns are unclear. It may be that cultural bias strongly influences the way in which we formulate equations, leading us to emulate existing forms and thus perpetuate established patterns. There must also be at play certain elements of communication optimisation. For instance, the specific composition of exponential functions, addition, negation and division that produces tanh appears often enough that people have felt the need to give it a name. This could, therefore, explain the similarity between mathematical and natural language, as the units of communication (operators or words) are defined (by humans) to describe common ideas as succinctly as possible. The next paragraph says, Quote On the other hand, it is tempting to believe that the observed frequency–rank relation reflects a deeper aspect of physical laws that could be regarded as a fundamental meta-law, a law about the laws of physics themselves. We refrain from further speculation. Edited October 23 by Genady
swansont Posted October 23 Posted October 23 17 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: This link was given with the original article that I posted; it was at the very end of the article. The link nobody can access? It starts with “institutions” which suggests that you are accessing it through a university or similar portal, and is why it’s not paywalled for you. When I went to New Scientist directly it said I had to be a subscriber to read it
Luc Turpin Posted October 23 Author Posted October 23 1 hour ago, swansont said: The paper mentions bias once (ipad wouldn’t let me copy paste from the pdf) We see that the possible bias proposed here is in how we write the equations down, rather than in the physics. IOW, they are showing we tend to write V=IR instead of I=V/R for language/communication reasons. It’s not a bias in the physics itself. Which suggests I was right before, that this was just a matter of finding the word bias and not understanding or not caring what was actually being discussed, because this has nothing to do with physics discoveries or some flaw in how we figure things out, it’s a linguistics issue with math as the language. So, how equations are written down has no effect on how we think of and process physics? 1 hour ago, Genady said: The article: 2408.11065 The word 'bias' appears once in the article, in the following paragraph: The next paragraph says, The introductory text of the article accompanying the paper states: "A strange pattern running through the equations of physics may reveal something fundamental about the universe or could be a sign that human brains are biased to ignore more complex explanations of reality – or both." Upon reading the article and paper a second time, if equations of physics are not revealing something fundamental about the universe, than what else is at play here other than bias? What could explain that all three sets of equations would follow a same pattern? Other than bias? A bias caused by the way human brains work and that entices us to ignore more complex explanations of reality is still a bias; and an important one. The use of one form of language over another or the preferential use of some symbols over others is a form of implicit bias, is it not?
Genady Posted October 23 Posted October 23 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: A bias caused by the way human brains work and that entices us to ignore more complex explanations of reality You haven't demonstrated this kind of bias in science. Edited October 23 by Genady
Luc Turpin Posted October 23 Author Posted October 23 3 minutes ago, Genady said: You haven't demonstrated this kind of bias in science. Valid point!
swansont Posted October 23 Posted October 23 11 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Valid point! And a point we’ve been making for a while. Complex explanations have a lot of “moving parts” to them, which means the equations that would explain them would have lots of variables, and nonlinear variables with small coefficients. Developing and refining models of these phenomena requires a lot of data, and/or more precise data. There’s no need to invoke bias for not having figured out hard problems the fact that they’re hard is sufficient. If there were this kind of bias we’d have gaps in the easier stuff. But if it’s at the cutting edge there’s no need for that hypothesis, and to entertain such an hypothesis, you need evidence. (a kind of cross between Occam’s razor and extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence) (and I wonder how long it will take for this “valid point” to be forgotten, and we see yet another unsupported claim of bias)
Luc Turpin Posted October 23 Author Posted October 23 (edited) 2 hours ago, swansont said: And a point we’ve been making for a while. Complex explanations have a lot of “moving parts” to them, which means the equations that would explain them would have lots of variables, and nonlinear variables with small coefficients. Developing and refining models of these phenomena requires a lot of data, and/or more precise data. There’s no need to invoke bias for not having figured out hard problems the fact that they’re hard is sufficient. If there were this kind of bias we’d have gaps in the easier stuff. But if it’s at the cutting edge there’s no need for that hypothesis, and to entertain such an hypothesis, you need evidence. (a kind of cross between Occam’s razor and extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence) (and I wonder how long it will take for this “valid point” to be forgotten, and we see yet another unsupported claim of bias) I concede that I have not demonstrated this kind of bias in science. However, the possibility of the results of the study showing such bias was originally introduced by the authors, not by myself. Notwithstanding, I grant that it was a reflection from the authors and of myself that it could be, not that it was. A second read of the paper combined with Genady's comment were required for me to come to this realization. To be clear, I am not stating that there isn't any of this kind of bias at work in science, but that at this point in time, I cannot demonstrate it. Also, I do not agree with your final statement that it is as "yet another unsupported claim of bias". There are studies out there claiming bias in science, but bringing them up on this platform is construed as cherry picking. Caught between a damned if you do rock and a damned if you don't hard place. As an end note, there is bias in science, there are many kinds of biases interacting with science, the cumulative effect of all of these biases on science is unknown, and claiming no effect is foolish. There only remains doubt as to the significance of the impact of bias on science. Upon reading studies about it, I suspect a high degree of impact, but concede again, that I cannot as yet demonstrate it. All that I can do is bring up studies or authors that have a like minded impression of the situation. Finaly, as long as there will be people at play in the scientific process, there will be bias in it. Edited October 23 by Luc Turpin
studiot Posted October 23 Posted October 23 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: I concede that I have not demonstrated this kind of bias in science. However, the possibility of the results of the study showing such bias was originally introduced by the authors, not by myself. Notwithstanding, I grant that it was a reflection from the authors and of myself that it could be, not that it was. A second read of the paper combined with Genady's comment were required for me to come to this realization. To be clear, I am not stating that there isn't any of this kind of bias at work in science, but that at this point in time, I cannot demonstrate it. Also, I do not agree with your final statement that it is as "yet another unsupported claim of bias". There are studies out there claiming bias in science, but bringing them up on this platform is construed as cherry picking. Caught between a damned if you do rock and a damned if you don't hard place. As an end note, there is bias in science, there are many kinds of biases interacting with science, the cumulative effect of all of these biases on science is unknown, and claiming no effect is foolish. There only remains doubt as to the significance of the impact of bias on science. Upon reading studies about it, I suspect a high degree of impact, but concede again, that I cannot as yet demonstrate it. All that I can do is bring up studies or authors that have a like minded impression of the situation. Finaly, as long as there will be people at play in the scientific process, there will be bias in it. I asked you before whether you thought bias was good, bad or indifferent. To which I received some evasive waffle platitude. In answer to one of your many posts alleging bias in science, not necessarily in this thread I tried to explain that bias can be deliberate. My example at that time was the transistor bias thae enables both you and I to make these postings. Another example of bias occurs when a dressmaker 'cuts on the bias' to achieve a particular effect with the fabric. They also use 'bias-binding' , bias facing, bias edging etc for other effects. So I say to you bias can be wanted and beneficial, or detrimental and unwanted or have no effect on the outcome.
swansont Posted October 23 Posted October 23 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: I concede that I have not demonstrated this kind of bias in science. However, the possibility of the results of the study showing such bias was originally introduced by the authors, not by myself. Notwithstanding, I grant that it was a reflection from the authors and of myself that it could be, not that it was. And I think this is part of the problem. You are only repeating things other people say, but you aren't prepared to actually discuss and defend it. When you are prepared to discuss the details, I think people will be prepared to engage. But not if you're going to pass the buck like this. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Also, I do not agree with your final statement that it is as "yet another unsupported claim of bias". There are studies out there claiming bias in science, but bringing them up on this platform is construed as cherry picking. Caught between a damned if you do rock and a damned if you don't hard place. You were accused of cherry-picking by one person, and you kinda gave away the game by saying "This one is more in line with my expectations" in reference to the cited study. But this is emblematic of a larger pattern - extrapolating based on a small sample, much like your earlier claims of bias were focused on cognitive science but you were accusing all of science of having these problems. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: As an end note, there is bias in science, there are many kinds of biases interacting with science, the cumulative effect of all of these biases on science is unknown, and claiming no effect is foolish. There only remains doubt as to the significance of the impact of bias on science. Upon reading studies about it, I suspect a high degree of impact, but concede again, that I cannot as yet demonstrate it. All that I can do is bring up studies or authors that have a like minded impression of the situation. Finaly, as long as there will be people at play in the scientific process, there will be bias in it. And nobody has argued that there isn't bias. But what we haven't really discussed much is what the biases are and how science fights against it. This whole thread started off discussing religion as the focus of alleged bias, and that's simply excluding non-science from the discussion. Science gets to decide what it investigates and what it doesn't. Trying to wedge religion/spiritualism into the conversation is viewed as an attempt to commandeer the legitimacy of science in a pursuit that is not science, and no, we're not having any part of it. Is it bias? Perhaps. We're biased against such piracy. You are free to go off and contemplate the mind using whatever tools you wish, and if you actually come up with answers I'm sure you'll shout it from the rooftop, but on this side of the border you do science. 1
Luc Turpin Posted October 23 Author Posted October 23 3 hours ago, studiot said: I asked you before whether you thought bias was good, bad or indifferent. To which I received some evasive waffle platitude. I will try and be more specific. When bias threatens objectivity it is bad. When bias is acknowledged and mitigated with no effect on outcome, it can become indiferent. When bias is purposefully used to determine or not, or manipulate an outcome, then it is good. I hope less platitude this time. 4 hours ago, studiot said: So I say to you bias can be wanted and beneficial, or detrimental and unwanted or have no effect on the outcome. Obviously agree, 1
studiot Posted October 24 Posted October 24 8 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: I will try and be more specific. When bias threatens objectivity it is bad. When bias is acknowledged and mitigated with no effect on outcome, it can become indiferent. When bias is purposefully used to determine or not, or manipulate an outcome, then it is good. I hope less platitude this time. Obviously agree, Now that's discussion and I don't mean just because you agree with me. +1 So to answer your question fully you need a lot more context than you supplied. Further considerations might be. 'Bias in Scinece ?' So do you mean in The process and activity of Science ? The body of theory of Science ? The relationship between Science and other human activities ? or What?
exchemist Posted October 24 Posted October 24 19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: So, how equations are written down has no effect on how we think of and process physics? The introductory text of the article accompanying the paper states: "A strange pattern running through the equations of physics may reveal something fundamental about the universe or could be a sign that human brains are biased to ignore more complex explanations of reality – or both." Upon reading the article and paper a second time, if equations of physics are not revealing something fundamental about the universe, than what else is at play here other than bias? What could explain that all three sets of equations would follow a same pattern? Other than bias? A bias caused by the way human brains work and that entices us to ignore more complex explanations of reality is still a bias; and an important one. The use of one form of language over another or the preferential use of some symbols over others is a form of implicit bias, is it not? What, then, is the "strange pattern" referred to? If you can describe that, it may help us grasp what is meant in this context by bias. If it simply says human brains are biased to prefer simple explanations to more complex ones, surely that is no more than restating the principle of Ockham's Razor, is it not? Do you want to criticise the principle of Ockham's Razor? 21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Hope that it is helpful The brain relies on shortcuts all the time. We use what we’ve learned from our environment to make quick assumptions about whom to trust, how to behave, what to say. But shortcuts can sometimes lead us astray. You can’t always trust your brain. Our eyes play tricks on us. Our minds fill in the gaps of what we think we see. But is that actually what’s there? Check out the two blue circles. They look like different sizes. But look again! A new perspective shows what they really are: two identical circles. Now check out these two squares—A and B. They look like different colors. A is darker than B, right? But look again! A new perspective shows what they really are: two identical squares. Two groups of circles appear on screen. The blue circle in the left group is surrounded with larger purple circles, where as the blue circle on the right is surrounded with smaller circles. The blue circle on the left appears to be smaller than the blue circle on the right. Two lines are drawn between the two circles, revealing that they are in fact the same size. The circles fade off screen. A checkerboard appears on screen and a cylinder casts a shadow on the checkerboard. Two of the squares are highlighted. Square A is surrounded with squares that are lighter color, where as square B is surrounded with squares that are darker color. Square A appears to be darker than square B. A line is drawn between the two squares, revealing that they are the same color. Still don't believe your eyes? These visual illusions work because the surrounding context of an image shapes what we see. Context is so powerful because it sets up our expectations of what we might see. And once we have that expectation, we can’t see it any other way! Titchener Circles Illusion When the center blue circle is surrounded by big pink circles, the center blue circle looks smaller than when it is surrounded by small pink circles. Checkered Shadow Illusion When the “A” and “B” squares are surrounded by a checkerboard pattern, our mind fills in the blanks and sees the “A” and “B” squares as different colors. Mindbugs are engrained patterns of thought that lead to errors in how we perceive, remember, reason, and make decisions. Dr. Mahzarin R. Banaji, Professor of Psychology, Harvard University Listen In From Mindbugs to Bias Transcript Bias is a process and builds over a lifetime. Familiarity Babies quickly learn to prefer people from familiar groups. A baby might prefer a face that matches the gender or race of their primary caregiver. At just a few hours old, newborn infants already prefer listening to a language that they heard in the womb over an unfamiliar language. Similarity Toddlers notice similarities and differences across groups defined by language, gender, or race, and they start to more clearly separate people along these dimensions. The adults around them fill in “value gaps” by subtly communicating about the kinds of people that are safe or smart. This teaches children whom they should approach and avoid. Belonging With further learning, children figure out who they are in the world. They learn the meaning of their own race, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, and more. As a result, they also come to feel belonging, preferring their in-groups (“us”), and perhaps expressing negative attitudes toward out-groups (“them”). Confirming The process of building and maintaining bias continues into adulthood. Throughout our lives, we use confirmation bias to see only what we expect to see in our environment. We take in only the examples that align with our preexisting notions and stereotypes. We discard the counter-examples that would challenge these world views. Implicit bias is like the smog that hangs over a community. It becomes the air people breathe. Shankar Vedantam, Journalist Listen In Practice Makes Perfect Transcript Get Inside Your Head. What about my brain? Is there bias there too? The amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex make up the control panel for bias. The amygdala fires up for our fears, the hippocampus records our memories, and the prefrontal cortex controls our ability to reason and reconsider. What part of the brain do you think is responsible for each reaction? What part of your brain is working here? You see a man walk into a fancy glass building. He’s carrying a briefcase and wearing an expensive suit. Six months later, you see another fancy glass building and assume, “that must be filled with men with briefcases and expensive suits.” Is it the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, or amygdala? It's the hippocampus! This organ is the brain’s memory bank. The hippocampus notes the associations we make and reminds us of them later on. In this case, it creates a connection (in fact, a stereotype) between fancy glass buildings and men with briefcases. What part of your brain is working here? You’re deeply afraid of snakes. Suddenly, a snake slithers into the room. Your mind makes a snap judgment, immediately sending the message: “Fright! Fear! Flee!” You run and jump on a nearby table to avoid the snake. Is it the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, or amygdala? It’s the amygdala! This is the “fear center” of the human brain. Fully developed just before a full-term baby’s birth, the amygdala sparks many of our emotions, fears, and impulse reactions. What part of your brain is working here? That snake is still in the room. Your amygdala has registered fear and the hippocampus reminded you to be afraid of snakes. You begin to calm down and realize that you don’t have to panic! The snake is across the room and, now that you see it more clearly, it doesn’t look so scary after all. Is it the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, or amygdala? It’s the prefrontal cortex (PFC)! This is where the brain settles things. We can use our PFC to reason through different perspectives, weigh pros and cons, or even revise our previous assumptions about things and people. Bias is in our brains and baked into our environments from early in childhood. But having bias does not mean that we are destined to be bad people. Those same brain processes can sometimes be used for good. As humans, we can recognize both what we have in common and what we hold as unique differences. Listen in on a conversation between a young scientist and a celebrated philosopher to learn about the nature of our biases and identities. Dr. Tessa Charlesworth, a psychologist at Harvard, and Dr. Kwame Appiah, an emeritus professor and author, share their thoughts here. Next SectionBias IRL*(*in real life) Bias is a process initiated even before we are born. It is a process of learning about the structures and associations embedded in the world around us. But what actually are those structures in the world? Where is bias in real life? This link was given with the original article that I posted; it was at the very end of the article. This is still unreadable rubbish, I'm afraid. Do you think it makes a useful point? If so perhaps you can summarise what it is. Or did you copy the link without reading it yourself?
Luc Turpin Posted October 24 Author Posted October 24 (edited) 4 hours ago, studiot said: So to answer your question fully you need a lot more context than you supplied. Further considerations might be. 'Bias in Scinece ?' So do you mean in The process and activity of Science ? The body of theory of Science ? The relationship between Science and other human activities ? or What? So, let’s be more precise. When acknowledged, most biases are managed in science with the exception of the non-empirical ones such as reductionism, determinism, causality, materialism, etc. They are basic assumptions that are made about how the world operates which then permeates the whole of science. They affect what topic to study in science, how hypotheses and experiments are set up; they play as well a role in the evaluation of evidence and interpretation of results. They are assumptions that need to be contended with when doing science, but in most cases are not. And there is no empirical way of managing them as they, again, are of a non-empirical empirical nature. 3 hours ago, exchemist said: This is still unreadable rubbish, I'm afraid. Do you think it makes a useful point? If so perhaps you can summarise what it is. Or did you copy the link without reading it yourself? It basically states that even our eyes and brains can easily be deceived in thinking something that is not and that context matters. An example of context at play was given above when I stated that non-empirical assumptions are being made and then brought along while doing science and affecting outcome. The Zipf's law thing appears to be also an indication that context might be at play in the elaboration of three different sets of physics equations. 16 hours ago, swansont said: This whole thread started off discussing religion as the focus of alleged bias, and that's simply excluding non-science from the discussion. Science gets to decide what it investigates and what it doesn't. Trying to wedge religion/spiritualism into the conversation is viewed as an attempt to commandeer the legitimacy of science in a pursuit that is not science, and no, we're not having any part of it. Is it bias? Perhaps. We're biased against such piracy. You are free to go off and contemplate the mind using whatever tools you wish, and if you actually come up with answers I'm sure you'll shout it from the rooftop, but on this side of the border you do science. Did I, at any time, explicitly or implicitly, mention religion or spiritualism in any of my posts on bias? Saying that there is bias in science is not directing the discussion towards any notion of religiosity or spiritualism. Contending that basic assumptions are being made and then brought along while doing science is also not that. And of "we're not having any part of it. Is it bias?" I would answer that yes it is and .....legitimate. Edited October 24 by Luc Turpin
Genady Posted October 24 Posted October 24 12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: reductionism, determinism, causality, materialism, etc. They are basic assumptions No, there are no such assumptions in science. (With the exception of "etc.", of course.) Demonstrate them.
dimreepr Posted October 24 Posted October 24 36 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: So, let’s be more precise. When acknowledged, most biases are managed in science with the exception of the non-empirical ones such as reductionism, determinism, causality, materialism, etc. They are basic assumptions that are made about how the world operates which then permeates the whole of science. Really Luc? you're still making the same mistake, you're conflating 'all of science' with 'all of philosophy'; mostly because, you don't really understand either... @Luc Turpin dude you're bright enough to string out these topics beyond their natural death, I kinda admire that, but for the love of god try listening as well, after which I'd welcome your input... 1
Luc Turpin Posted October 24 Author Posted October 24 1 hour ago, Genady said: No, there are no such assumptions in science. (With the exception of "etc.", of course.) Demonstrate them. I disagree. There are such assumptions made in science and the implications are significant. However, I cannot demonstrate it, so I shall heed Dim's advice and just end the discussion. 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: Really Luc? you're still making the same mistake, you're conflating 'all of science' with 'all of philosophy'; mostly because, you don't really understand either... @Luc Turpin dude you're bright enough to string out these topics beyond their natural death, I kinda admire that, but for the love of god try listening as well, after which I'd welcome your input... Listening and heeding your call by ending this one.
swansont Posted October 24 Posted October 24 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Did I, at any time, explicitly or implicitly, mention religion or spiritualism in any of my posts on bias? Yes. More than once. It’s trivial to check. Quote Saying that there is bias in science is not directing the discussion towards any notion of religiosity or spiritualism. In the very first post you complained about how you get pushback whenever you mention them. The discussion was split off of a discussion on possible evolutionary advantage of religion because you went off-topic and brought up bias. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Contending that basic assumptions are being made and then brought along while doing science is also not that. And of "we're not having any part of it. Is it bias?" I would answer that yes it is and .....legitimate. It’s guarding the borders; making sure that science remains science, and things like astrology don’t get to pass themselves off as having scientific legitimacy without presenting empirical evidence. Which is why we keep asking for evidence.
studiot Posted October 24 Posted October 24 3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: The Zipf's law thing appears to be also an indication that context might be at play in the elaboration of three different sets of physics equations. I have to say that I am suprised and disappointed to see Professor Ferriera lending his name to that (rubbish my opinion) paper you found and swansont linked to. Perhaps he was the supervising Professor, I don't know, but the paper is not worthy of Oriel College Oxford. The only Mathematics it studies is taught 14 year olds. So I can't see how it can be in any way representative of Mathematics in Science.
Luc Turpin Posted October 24 Author Posted October 24 (edited) 2 hours ago, swansont said: Yes. More than once. It’s trivial to check. In the very first post you complained about how you get pushback whenever you mention them. The discussion was split off of a discussion on possible evolutionary advantage of religion because you went off-topic and brought up bias. It’s guarding the borders; making sure that science remains science, and things like astrology don’t get to pass themselves off as having scientific legitimacy without presenting empirical evidence. Which is why we keep asking for evidence. I committed to cease and desist on bias. Edited October 24 by Luc Turpin
studiot Posted October 24 Posted October 24 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: I committed to cease and desist on bias. By trying to change the subject from bias to assumptions. Do you not know the difference ? 5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: So, let’s be more precise. When acknowledged, most biases are managed in science with the exception of the non-empirical ones such as reductionism, determinism, causality, materialism, etc. They are basic assumptions that are made about how the world operates which then permeates the whole of science. They affect what topic to study in science, how hypotheses and experiments are set up; they play as well a role in the evaluation of evidence and interpretation of results. They are assumptions that need to be contended with when doing science, but in most cases are not. And there is no empirical way of managing them as they, again, are of a non-empirical empirical nature. Before this, I was going to say your questions have been very well answered in detail but now I think dimreepr put it much better than I did. Edited October 24 by studiot
CharonY Posted October 24 Posted October 24 ! Moderator Note Considering that the discussions has run its course, the topic is locked.
Recommended Posts