Confirmation bias in science: how to avoid it
source: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/07/confirmation-bias-how-to-avoid-it.ars
-
-
- toyotabedzrock
- added this
(follow the link and read the entire article, below is the last few paragraphs)
Science as a contact sport
This is the difference between doing science from the inside and observing it from the outside. We attack each other's ideas mercilessly, and those attacks are not ignored. Sometimes, it turns out that the objection was the result of a misunderstanding, and once the misunderstanding is cleared up, the objection goes away. Objections that are relevant result in ideas being discarded or modified. And the key to this is that the existence of confirmation bias is both acknowledged and actively fought against.
You will note that in the two clear cases of confirmation bias, once it was confirmed, scientists stopped pursuing the claim. Those that continued to try and publish were quickly isolated. In the third case, we see how hard it can be to detect confirmation bias. Nevertheless, the debate surrounding the work remains robust, and new evidence is presented as it becomes available. Critically, neither side of the debate is actively suppressed.
This is why I have been using the term "denier." If you carefully examine the debate in the climate science community, you will find that objections are considered carefully and seriously—even the ones that originate from the likes of McIntyre and McKitrick. However, once a problem is addressed to the point where another problem is bigger, scientists move on.
Deniers, however, do not move on. Even if the objection is shown to be completely spurious—for instance, creationists often falsely claim that evolution is in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics—deniers do not give them up. In effect, this means that anything you say and do to help them understand your work is ignored completely. This is why some figures in the climate debate end up the denier camp and outside the science camp.
Science as a contact sport
This is the difference between doing science from the inside and observing it from the outside. We attack each other's ideas mercilessly, and those attacks are not ignored. Sometimes, it turns out that the objection was the result of a misunderstanding, and once the misunderstanding is cleared up, the objection goes away. Objections that are relevant result in ideas being discarded or modified. And the key to this is that the existence of confirmation bias is both acknowledged and actively fought against.
You will note that in the two clear cases of confirmation bias, once it was confirmed, scientists stopped pursuing the claim. Those that continued to try and publish were quickly isolated. In the third case, we see how hard it can be to detect confirmation bias. Nevertheless, the debate surrounding the work remains robust, and new evidence is presented as it becomes available. Critically, neither side of the debate is actively suppressed.
This is why I have been using the term "denier." If you carefully examine the debate in the climate science community, you will find that objections are considered carefully and seriously—even the ones that originate from the likes of McIntyre and McKitrick. However, once a problem is addressed to the point where another problem is bigger, scientists move on.
Deniers, however, do not move on. Even if the objection is shown to be completely spurious—for instance, creationists often falsely claim that evolution is in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics—deniers do not give them up. In effect, this means that anything you say and do to help them understand your work is ignored completely. This is why some figures in the climate debate end up the denier camp and outside the science camp.
-
- tags:
- Climate Change, Creationism, Bias, climate gate, 1 more
