User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: How Scientists Can Avoid Cognitive Bias

  1. #1
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    How Scientists Can Avoid Cognitive Bias

    "Sabine Hossenfelder is an author and theoretical physicist who researches quantum gravity. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the Analog Systems for Gravity Duals group." @ wiki.

    From How Scientists Can Avoid Cognitive Bias:




    "A bias closely linked to social reinforcement is the shared information bias. This bias has the consequence that we are more likely to pay attention to information that is shared by many people we know, rather than to the information held by only few people. You can see right away how this is problematic for science: That’s because how many people know of a certain fact tells you nothing about whether that fact is correct or not. And whether some information is widely shared should not be a factor for evaluating its correctness."


    Those who speak of consensus in climate science would do well to heed this bias.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Collateral Damage (12-17-2019),Cotton1 (12-17-2019)

  3. #2
    Points: 174,797, Level: 99
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 2,853
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870671
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,104
    Points
    174,797
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,830
    Thanked 12,934x in 8,812 Posts
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    "Sabine Hossenfelder is an author and theoretical physicist who researches quantum gravity. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the Analog Systems for Gravity Duals group." @ wiki.

    From How Scientists Can Avoid Cognitive Bias:




    "A bias closely linked to social reinforcement is the shared information bias. This bias has the consequence that we are more likely to pay attention to information that is shared by many people we know, rather than to the information held by only few people. You can see right away how this is problematic for science: That’s because how many people know of a certain fact tells you nothing about whether that fact is correct or not. And whether some information is widely shared should not be a factor for evaluating its correctness."


    Those who speak of consensus in climate science would do well to heed this bias.
    It is also possible that just because there is consensus, it is not due to bias but because the science supports the conclusion, for example, the earth rotates around the sun. It is up to the scientific community to vet the science and thus also the bias in conclusions. Just because a few people disagree, does not make them right. They may also be victims of cognitive bias.
    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Dr. Who For This Useful Post:

    Cotton1 (12-17-2019)

  5. #3
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    It is also possible that just because there is consensus, it is not due to bias but because the science supports the conclusion, for example, the earth rotates around the sun. It is up to the scientific community to vet the science and thus also the bias in conclusions. Just because a few people disagree, does not make them right. They may also be victims of cognitive bias.
    Then it's not science. Science is not decided by a majority, it's not a democracy.

    That the sun rotates around the earth is a fact. AGW is a conclusion, better, a hypothesis. Learn the difference. Then apply facts to falsify hypotheses, as science does.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  6. #4
    Points: 174,797, Level: 99
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 2,853
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870671
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,104
    Points
    174,797
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,830
    Thanked 12,934x in 8,812 Posts
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Then it's not science. Science is not decided by a majority, it's not a democracy.

    That the sun rotates around the earth is a fact. AGW is a conclusion, better, a hypothesis. Learn the difference. Then apply facts to falsify hypotheses, as science does.
    If 85% of the scientific community agree about scientific conclusions, it does not make them wrong or biased. They may be and then again they may not be. Most scientific discovery has encountered naysayers, despite evidence to the contrary. At some point the evidence is either incontrovertible or it's not.
    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  7. #5
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    If 85% of the scientific community agree about scientific conclusions, it does not make them wrong or biased. They may be and then again they may not be. Most scientific discovery has encountered naysayers, despite evidence to the contrary. At some point the evidence is either incontrovertible or it's not.
    Correct, but it also does not make them right.

    And we know that the scientific process of falsification will eventually prove them wrong in their current hypotheses.

    That's just the nature of science.


    At some point the evidence is either incontrovertible or it's not.
    That is wrong. While that is the way science once worked, by means of proof by induction, it has been shown that induction can prove nothing because there will always be new data. This was the problem of induction discovered by Hume. Up until that time it was believed by all the evident data that swans were white, then black swans were discovered in Australia. Induction thereby remained a problem until Popper resolved it with falsification.


    It surprises me that you continue to argue your political view of science even though you have had thus explained to you many times. One has to wonder if it is willful ignorance.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  8. #6
    Points: 174,797, Level: 99
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 2,853
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870671
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,104
    Points
    174,797
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,830
    Thanked 12,934x in 8,812 Posts
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Correct, but it also does not make them right.

    And we know that the scientific process of falsification will eventually prove them wrong in their current hypotheses.

    That's just the nature of science.




    That is wrong. While that is the way science once worked, by means of proof by induction, it has been shown that induction can prove nothing because there will always be new data. This was the problem of induction discovered by Hume. Up until that time it was believed by all the evident data that swans were white, then black swans were discovered in Australia. Induction thereby remained a problem until Popper resolved it with falsification.


    It surprises me that you continue to argue your political view of science even though you have had thus explained to you many times. One has to wonder if it is willful ignorance.
    Ignoring your obvious insults, you act as if there is nothing in science that is incontrovertible within the confines of a specific set of factors, like one might find on the planet earth. I was not discussing induction. That is your contribution designed to obfuscate my statement. Climate science is far from perfected, but the theories are based on scientific data. Wrong or right, it is not just a matter of political preference.
    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  9. #7
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    Ignoring your obvious insults, you act as if there is nothing in science that is incontrovertible within the confines of a specific set of factors, like one might find on the planet earth. I was not discussing induction. That is your contribution designed to obfuscate my statement. Climate science is far from perfected, but the theories are based on scientific data. Wrong or right, it is not just a matter of political preference.

    The insult is you listen to a physicist state "how many people know of a certain fact tells you nothing about whether that fact is correct or not. And whether some information is widely shared should not be a factor for evaluating its correctness" and have the audacity to contradict her as if you know better.

    No, nothing in science is incontrovertible. Deal with it.

    You were describing induction. "At some point the evidence is either incontrovertible or it's not" is induction. Not my problem you don't know that.

    Consensus is political.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts