Bias in Science

[TimG]

Nature has an essay on how false-positive bias is corrupting science:

http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600

Alarming cracks are starting to penetrate deep into the scientific edifice. They threaten the status of science and its value to society. And they cannot be blamed on the usual suspects — inadequate funding, misconduct, political interference, an illiterate public. Their cause is bias, and the threat they pose goes to the heart of research.

How can we explain such pervasive bias? Like a magnetic field that pulls iron filings into alignment, a powerful cultural belief is aligning multiple sources of scientific bias in the same direction. The belief is that progress in science means the continual production of positive findings. All involved benefit from positive results, and from the appearance of progress. Scientists are rewarded both intellectually and professionally, science administrators are empowered and the public desire for a better world is answered. The lack of incentives to report negative results, replicate experiments or recognize inconsistencies, ambiguities and uncertainties is widely appreciated — but the necessary cultural change is incredibly difficult to achieve.

This is a point I have been making over and over again:

Scientists rightly extol the capacity of research to self-correct. But the lesson coming from biomedicine is that this self-correction depends not just on competition between researchers, but also on the close ties between science and its application that allow society to push back against biased and useless results.

The implications is that research in fields where theories cannot be tested in real applications is next to useless since it is impossible to seperate the good from the biased and useless results.

XKCD has an excellent illustration of the problem: http://xkcd.com/882/

Edited May 16, 2012 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

Don't expect much concern from the usual suspects.....

[Michael Hardner]

If we're talking about Climate Science (seems like we are) it's probably more of a concern that there's no public forum out there to discuss these issues and to supplant irrational media discussion.

[waldo]

Don't expect much concern from the usual suspects.....

why, what do you mean? I do have a concern - the misspelling in the thread title. Can you look into that?

[waldo]

If we're talking about Climate Science (seems like we are) it's probably more of a concern that there's no public forum out there to discuss these issues and to supplant irrational media discussion.

standard TimG effort... he won't actually come right out and say it! Of course, it's only quite recently we've had several complaints... from the usual suspects (hey Simple?)... about Nature Journal opinion pieces. Looks like they like this one and want to 'run with it'. But hey now, doesn't the writer actually take steps to avoid broad-based generalizations... with slightly measured emphasis on bio-fields and the nature of its study practices. Of course, the TimG types will attempt to spray this one widely... unfortunately, the physical sciences aren't a particular fit for this opinion piece... or TimG's long standing self-serving bias against scientists, particularly climate scientists. I expect he'll be along shortly to tout the mystical remedy available through post-modernism and "Blog Science"!

[TimG]

If we're talking about Climate Science (seems like we are) it's probably more of a concern that there's no public forum out there to discuss these issues and to supplant irrational media discussion.

The point being made is not that people need to rationally discuss the results. The point is science is not self correcting UNLESS there is some way to demonstrate the hypotheses in the real world. This is a point that I strongly agree with and I why I get pissed off when people treat all science as equally worthy. The fact is some scientific fields are inherently untrustworthy because there is no way to validate their results. It is necessary to distinguish between science that can be verified and science that cannot. Edited May 11, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The point being made is not that people need to rationally discuss the results. The point is science is not self correcting UNLESS there is some way to demonstrate the hypotheses in the real world.

NOT self correcting is overstating it. Real world testing will obviously give you more feedback, that's obvious, but you overstate it when you say not self correcting.

[BubberMiley]

standard TimG effort... he won't actually come right out and say it!

Being explicit would expose his complete lack of understanding of science in general. He only half understood the original blog he took it from to begin with. :lol;

[TimG]

NOT self correcting is overstating it. Real world testing will obviously give you more feedback, that's obvious, but you overstate it when you say not self correcting.

Without real feedback you have no way to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. Therefore it is impossible for science to self-correct. This should be obvious except a lot of people see science as a religion (e.g. folks like waldo) and have no idea want science is, what it does and what it cannot do. So they run around claiming that X must be true cause somebody wrote a paper on it when such papers are really nothing but unsubstantiated opinion when there is no way to verify the theory against the real world. Edited May 15, 2012 by TimG

[BubberMiley]

Without real feedback you have no way to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.

Can you describe the scientific method?

[TimG]

Can you describe the scientific method?

Propose a hypothesis, construct an experiment to test it, do the test, update hypothesis to reflect test results and repeat. It is not science if you don't have the feedback from real world tests.

Now a question to test your scientific literacy:

Can you explain the point being made in this cartoon? http://xkcd.com/882/

Edited May 15, 2012 by TimG

[fellowtraveller]

It is necessary to distinguish between science that can be verified and science that cannot.

I don't understand that statement.

If the result of an experiment cannot be verified by being observed and duplicated , would that not be conjecture or opinion rather than science?

[Guest Manny]

Part of science is to look for mechanisms that give feedback, via experimentation. An ongoing research effort in itself.

[waldo]

Without real feedback you have no way to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.

Can you describe the scientific method?

Propose a hypothesis, construct an experiment to test it, do the test, update hypothesis to reflect test results and repeat. It is not science if you don't have the feedback from real world tests.

ha! Perfect Bubber... nothing like zeroing on the TimG nonsense!

of course, the elephant in the room that MLW member 'TimG' still refuses to mention directly, is AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming, contributing to Climate Change. Clearly, the traditional null hypothesis in Climate Science has been/is that, "humans are not to blame for climate change"... with the alternative hypothesis that, "humans are to blame". Of course Bubber, if TimG actually knew anything about the scientific method he presumes to beak-off about, he would understand that scientists researching within Climate Science endevour to falsify the null hypothesis... and, by cracky, they even put degrees of confidence around result findings - go figure! MLW member 'TimG' just can't cope with the consensus results that repeatedly thump his "fake skepticism"... his overt denial.

now, over the expanse of MLW GWCC related threads, MLW member 'TimG' has been repeatedly cornered, over and over again. As always, TimG kryptonite is to simply ask MLW member 'TimG' to present an alternative principal causal link to GWCC - one other than anthropogenic sourced CO2 fossil-fuel emissions. In short order, he'll quietly 'fade to black' and normalcy will return!

of course, TimG keeps a comin; invariably, his many failings turn his frustrations to the personal... where he'll bluster forth with the likes of:

...a lot of people see science as a religion (e.g. folks like waldo) and have no idea want science is, what it does and what it cannot do. So they run around claiming that X must be true cause somebody wrote a paper on it when such papers are really nothing but unsubstantiated opinion when there is no way to verify the theory against the real world.

... which, equally, necessitate the need to highlight that the MLW member 'TimG' denial premise holds to themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption, selling disaster porn, rent seeking, etc., etc., etc.

[TimG]

Waldo, please explain the point being made by the cartoon. http://xkcd.com/882/

Edited May 15, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Waldo, please explain the point being made by the cartoon. http://xkcd.com/882/

you keep flogging that toon - perhaps you... you... should take some time and explain exactly what you interpret it to say. While you're doing that, why not relate practical examples... most particularly within the physical sciences - you know, the elephant in the room you keep dancing around.

ok, ok... in anticipation of you actually responding and giving your toon interpretation, I believe your linked toon is a fine example of cherry jelly bean picking!

no, wait... is the toon highlighting the disproportionate media frenzy... perhaps the failure of the lamestream media to report science properly? Is that it?

no, wait... is the toon showcasing the Multiple Comparisons Fallacy. Oh look, my reference link even draws an origination tie to the science of epidemiology... why that even parallels the OP link's Nature Journal opinion piece's emphasis, hey?

don't forget... the elephant in the room! (Try to) apply your toon... there, with real-world legitimate practical examples. Let's have some real fun, hey?

on edit: please correct the spelling in your thread title... it's driving me freaking crazeee, man!

Edited May 16, 2012 by waldo

[waldo]

on edit: please correct the spelling in your thread title... it's driving me freaking crazeee, man!

excellent... thread title misspelling corrected... it's a start - we're on our way! How's the work on your toon explanation and physical science examples coming along? Soon?

[waldo]

Waldo, please explain the point being made by the cartoon. http://xkcd.com/882/

you keep flogging that toon - perhaps you... you... should take some time and explain exactly what you interpret it to say. While you're doing that, why not relate practical examples... most particularly within the physical sciences - you know, the elephant in the room you keep dancing around.

.

.

.

don't forget... the elephant in the room! (Try to) apply your toon... there, with real-world legitimate practical examples. Let's have some real fun, hey?

as I clearly explained the toon... we seem to be lacking your explanation and practical (physical science) examples.

***bump***