You misread my sarcasm. I was referring to the original story author. Though I absolutely disagree your last statement - it isn't that scientists are less prone to confirmation bias, it's that the scientific method requires external peer-review. So the unavoidable confirmation bias is minimized by third-party analysis. That doesn't mean that an individual scientist is inherently less biased than any other individual.
For reference of confirmation bias is scientific history: cold fusion, N-rays, homeopathy, etc.
I first thought you were the poll creator, sorry...this is what tiredness does to me, ugh.
I guess my wording was pretty much wrong then...the reason that the scientific community's results are generally less biased (or should be ideally) is because of its efforts to test hypothesises and analyse results by a wide range of people.
I wouldn't call things like homoeopathy science though..their 'research' is pseudo-scientific at best.
I just meant that homeopathy was historically considered acceptable science. Most of that was eradicated with a more rigorous peer-review system, but even then things like cold fusion and N-rays still slipped through the cracks.
Agreed. That's why I love science - always testing what we think we know. We think we understand how gravity works, and then some German dude comes along and shows us it's not that simple. It's sort of a shame that so many people think that a single book contains all the information they'll ever need to learn.
IIN that scientists make stuff up when evidence points to a creator
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
You misread my sarcasm. I was referring to the original story author. Though I absolutely disagree your last statement - it isn't that scientists are less prone to confirmation bias, it's that the scientific method requires external peer-review. So the unavoidable confirmation bias is minimized by third-party analysis. That doesn't mean that an individual scientist is inherently less biased than any other individual.
For reference of confirmation bias is scientific history: cold fusion, N-rays, homeopathy, etc.
--
qwerty098765
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I first thought you were the poll creator, sorry...this is what tiredness does to me, ugh.
I guess my wording was pretty much wrong then...the reason that the scientific community's results are generally less biased (or should be ideally) is because of its efforts to test hypothesises and analyse results by a wide range of people.
I wouldn't call things like homoeopathy science though..their 'research' is pseudo-scientific at best.
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's okay.
I just meant that homeopathy was historically considered acceptable science. Most of that was eradicated with a more rigorous peer-review system, but even then things like cold fusion and N-rays still slipped through the cracks.
--
qwerty098765
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well, true.
That's why we should never assume our scientific knowledge to be complete I guess...
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Agreed. That's why I love science - always testing what we think we know. We think we understand how gravity works, and then some German dude comes along and shows us it's not that simple. It's sort of a shame that so many people think that a single book contains all the information they'll ever need to learn.
--
qwerty098765
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Exactly!
Nothing is certain and people need to accept this.