5 ms·

And just to show how complicated science in general is, your thinking is another example of bias. Requiring a higher burden of proof for findings that someone

And just to show how complicated science in general is, your thinking is another example of bias. Requiring a higher burden of proof for findings that someone might be uncomfortable with is bad science. The burden of proof must be equally high for everyone. The real problem here isn't the science, is the pseudo-science and the journalism. It's pretty common for people to take single studies out of context and act as if their cherry picked study is the final word. Science journalists are supposed to bridge the gap between experts and laymen, but there seems to be very few good science journalists, and there seems to be lots of hacks and conmen.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
>> Requiring a higher burden of proof for findings that someone might be uncomfortable with is bad science. That is not my comment. My comment claims that cultural bias can influence the result of scientific studies and we must be vigilant not to let this happen. Do you disagree?
- justwalt 7y ago
  Didn’t you say that one result as opposed to the other should be considered extremely suspicious and looked at again multiple times? Should the opposite result also be viewed this way?
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    I said that, yes. I didn't say anything about results that make people uncomfortable. Can you explain why you brought up the subject? >> Should the opposite result also be viewed this way? Does the opposite result coincide with a commonly held preconception?
    - threwawasy1228 7y ago
      I think what they are arguing is that, YOU are feeling uncomfortable with one of the results, and thus are biased toward exploring it more than the other which validates your views. You here are showing that bias again by saying that because the opposite coincides with commonly held preconceptions, it should be taken without as much scrutiny. If this isn't what you meant I apologize but that sure seems to be what you are saying.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
        It's very unpleasant to take part in an online conversation only for people to try to psychoanalyse you and discern hidden motives in your comments. My comment says what I meant to say. What it doesn't say, I didn't mean to say on the subject. Responses to what I didn't say are none of my business and I won't bother with them any more.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > Does the opposite result coincide with a commonly held preconception? The only reasonable answer is "It doesn't matter." As long as the result is reproducible, coinciding with commonly held preconceptions or not is of no relevance whatsoever. All results need to be equally validated for reproducibility.
      - owens99 7y ago
        You don’t seem to think bias is reproducible.
        bluGill 7y ago
        It is, but the scientific method is the best we have to eliminate bias. If the study design is sound and the results reproduce it is a fact. Now it may well be the study design is biased, but since it is documented anyone who sees a new bias is welcome to design a new study that eliminates that (I write this as if doing a scientific study is easy, in the real world it isn't but I'll ignore that real objection). There are also interesting meta-studies that eliminate some bias.
    - phkahler 7y ago
      >> I didn't say anything about results that make people uncomfortable. Perhaps you didn't realize that going against cultural bias (your term in another comment) make many people uncomfortable.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
        But what does that have to do with my comment? Did I say anything about making people uncomfortable?
    - wtdata 7y ago
      > Does the opposite result coincide with a commonly held preconception? Why should the result that goes against the commonly held preconception be under greater scrutiny? If any difference would exist in scrutiny, it should obviously ask more from a result that goes against the general preconception.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  That is of course true. What you might be missing is that the current leftist consensus dominating western universities is a strong form of cultural bias.
- satokema_work 7y ago
  You're just stealing cows again, coming up with a clever argument against the studies you don't like while defending the studies you do. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand...
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"Requiring a higher burden of proof for findings that someone might be uncomfortable with is bad science. The burden of proof must be equally high for everyone." If the burden of proof is set at the level in which a statement can be made such that there is evidence that cannot be explained by other phenomena then both of you can be correct. (TBH I don't agree that one level of skepticism should be warranted for all things. If someone claimed P=NP my expectations are significantly higher than if someone claimed that HN commentors primarily comment in English.)
- kbenson 7y ago
  I agree that some things would require more evidence, but it's problematic when that is applied simply because they results are inconvenient in one way or another, and when it keeps being applied so the results never have to be acknowledged. Look at climate change. People are far to willing to discount information that is at odds with their preconception of the world. To differing degrees, this is a problem on both sides.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "... it's problematic when that is applied simply because they results are inconvenient in one way or another..." IMO the problem is that it's not 'simply' because the results are inconvenient in one way or another. That seems like a rather handwavy or dismissing cognitive understanding of what the person is saying. In their perception it is because a given conclusion has a known and studied bias- this isn't particularly simple, nor is it about inconvenience. It is that the evidence provided may have caveats that have also been studied that would skew the evidence to be explained by other factors. This is similar to the claim about the convtroversies behind global warming or antivax, except the amount of evidence is overwhelming such that the scientific consensus of possible skew is extremely low. I don't know (and have not heavily researched) if brain architecture and gender identity and human behavior (as a trifecta) have the same amount of evidence (I was under the impression that the technology to study the brain architecture is new enough that the research hasn't been wholly settled- if this is incorrect let me know).

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

>> Requiring a higher burden of proof for findings that someone might be uncomfortable with is bad science. That is not my comment. My comment claims that cultural bias can influence the result of scientific studies and we must be vigilant not to let this happen. Do you disagree?

justwalt 7y ago
Didn’t you say that one result as opposed to the other should be considered extremely suspicious and looked at again multiple times? Should the opposite result also be viewed this way?
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  I said that, yes. I didn't say anything about results that make people uncomfortable. Can you explain why you brought up the subject? >> Should the opposite result also be viewed this way? Does the opposite result coincide with a commonly held preconception?
  - threwawasy1228 7y ago
    I think what they are arguing is that, YOU are feeling uncomfortable with one of the results, and thus are biased toward exploring it more than the other which validates your views. You here are showing that bias again by saying that because the opposite coincides with commonly held preconceptions, it should be taken without as much scrutiny. If this isn't what you meant I apologize but that sure seems to be what you are saying.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
      It's very unpleasant to take part in an online conversation only for people to try to psychoanalyse you and discern hidden motives in your comments. My comment says what I meant to say. What it doesn't say, I didn't mean to say on the subject. Responses to what I didn't say are none of my business and I won't bother with them any more.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > Does the opposite result coincide with a commonly held preconception? The only reasonable answer is "It doesn't matter." As long as the result is reproducible, coinciding with commonly held preconceptions or not is of no relevance whatsoever. All results need to be equally validated for reproducibility.
    - owens99 7y ago
      You don’t seem to think bias is reproducible.
      - bluGill 7y ago
        It is, but the scientific method is the best we have to eliminate bias. If the study design is sound and the results reproduce it is a fact. Now it may well be the study design is biased, but since it is documented anyone who sees a new bias is welcome to design a new study that eliminates that (I write this as if doing a scientific study is easy, in the real world it isn't but I'll ignore that real objection). There are also interesting meta-studies that eliminate some bias.
  - phkahler 7y ago
    >> I didn't say anything about results that make people uncomfortable. Perhaps you didn't realize that going against cultural bias (your term in another comment) make many people uncomfortable.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
      But what does that have to do with my comment? Did I say anything about making people uncomfortable?
  - wtdata 7y ago
    > Does the opposite result coincide with a commonly held preconception? Why should the result that goes against the commonly held preconception be under greater scrutiny? If any difference would exist in scrutiny, it should obviously ask more from a result that goes against the general preconception.
BurningFrog 7y ago
That is of course true. What you might be missing is that the current leftist consensus dominating western universities is a strong form of cultural bias.
satokema_work 7y ago
You're just stealing cows again, coming up with a clever argument against the studies you don't like while defending the studies you do. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand...

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

"Requiring a higher burden of proof for findings that someone might be uncomfortable with is bad science. The burden of proof must be equally high for everyone." If the burden of proof is set at the level in which a statement can be made such that there is evidence that cannot be explained by other phenomena then both of you can be correct. (TBH I don't agree that one level of skepticism should be warranted for all things. If someone claimed P=NP my expectations are significantly higher than if someone claimed that HN commentors primarily comment in English.)

kbenson 7y ago
I agree that some things would require more evidence, but it's problematic when that is applied simply because they results are inconvenient in one way or another, and when it keeps being applied so the results never have to be acknowledged. Look at climate change. People are far to willing to discount information that is at odds with their preconception of the world. To differing degrees, this is a problem on both sides.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "... it's problematic when that is applied simply because they results are inconvenient in one way or another..." IMO the problem is that it's not 'simply' because the results are inconvenient in one way or another. That seems like a rather handwavy or dismissing cognitive understanding of what the person is saying. In their perception it is because a given conclusion has a known and studied bias- this isn't particularly simple, nor is it about inconvenience. It is that the evidence provided may have caveats that have also been studied that would skew the evidence to be explained by other factors. This is similar to the claim about the convtroversies behind global warming or antivax, except the amount of evidence is overwhelming such that the scientific consensus of possible skew is extremely low. I don't know (and have not heavily researched) if brain architecture and gender identity and human behavior (as a trifecta) have the same amount of evidence (I was under the impression that the technology to study the brain architecture is new enough that the research hasn't been wholly settled- if this is incorrect let me know).