4 ms·

The article conflates "science" and "scientists". Science can test hypotheses, even if individual scientists fall in love with their own theories. The article

The article conflates "science" and "scientists". Science can test hypotheses, even if individual scientists fall in love with their own theories. The article itself gives a concrete example-- the work showing Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a "fluke" was done by a different research team. A more interesting question than "Do scientists suffer from confirmation bias?" might be "Are scientists more prone to confirmation bias than other professionals?" Or "In the long run of history, do the conclusions of science get overturned more often than the conclusions of other fields?"

hobin 14y ago
"In the long run of history, do the conclusions of science get overturned more often than the conclusions of other fields?" This would not tell you anything about bias, though. It leaves out the possibility that scientists are simply right more often.
learc83 14y ago
>Science can test hypotheses, even if individual scientists fall in love with their own theories. The scientific process is incredibly useful, but I grow tired of the near religious reverence for the nebulous "Science." Science isn't monolithic. It isn't an object, it can't do anything. Science is merely a process practiced by people. Science is the scientists. Science has hierarchies like any other human institution that can wrongly prevent the spread of dissenting ideas. All it takes is enough people in the right places to keep a bad idea firmly entrenched for years. As research becomes more and more specialized we may become even more vulnerable to small entrenched groups with incorrect conclusions. Many of the incorrect theories overturned through the years, where done so, not because the scientists who make up "Science" changed there mind after seeing contradictory evidence, but because they died off.
- lusr 14y ago
  Your comment seems to start off by agreeing with the parent but then diverges when you say: > Science is the scientists. > Science has hierarchies... No, scientists have human flaws which lead to biases, hierarchies, etc. Science, as a method for discovering the truth about our world, works very well in the big scheme of things and the reverence for it is absolutely well deserved. Whether it's true or not that older scientists sometimes have to die off before new scientists following more fruitful paths can have proper attention is a human concern; the fact is that the scientific method is ultimately very successful and the parent is quite correct in observing that the only issue here is conflating science and scientists with unfair expectations.

hobin 14y ago

"In the long run of history, do the conclusions of science get overturned more often than the conclusions of other fields?" This would not tell you anything about bias, though. It leaves out the possibility that scientists are simply right more often.

learc83 14y ago

>Science can test hypotheses, even if individual scientists fall in love with their own theories. The scientific process is incredibly useful, but I grow tired of the near religious reverence for the nebulous "Science." Science isn't monolithic. It isn't an object, it can't do anything. Science is merely a process practiced by people. Science is the scientists. Science has hierarchies like any other human institution that can wrongly prevent the spread of dissenting ideas. All it takes is enough people in the right places to keep a bad idea firmly entrenched for years. As research becomes more and more specialized we may become even more vulnerable to small entrenched groups with incorrect conclusions. Many of the incorrect theories overturned through the years, where done so, not because the scientists who make up "Science" changed there mind after seeing contradictory evidence, but because they died off.

lusr 14y ago
Your comment seems to start off by agreeing with the parent but then diverges when you say: > Science is the scientists. > Science has hierarchies... No, scientists have human flaws which lead to biases, hierarchies, etc. Science, as a method for discovering the truth about our world, works very well in the big scheme of things and the reverence for it is absolutely well deserved. Whether it's true or not that older scientists sometimes have to die off before new scientists following more fruitful paths can have proper attention is a human concern; the fact is that the scientific method is ultimately very successful and the parent is quite correct in observing that the only issue here is conflating science and scientists with unfair expectations.