Difference between revisions of "Scientific bias"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Funding: adding link description) |
(internal or external pressure to get a specific result) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Scientific bias''' is the assumption that a theory is true or false without evidence one way or another, or the attempt to dismiss or discourage research efforts to confirm or deny the theory - often on political or ideological grounds. | '''Scientific bias''' is the assumption that a theory is true or false without evidence one way or another, or the attempt to dismiss or discourage research efforts to confirm or deny the theory - often on political or ideological grounds. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A physicist wrote: | ||
| + | * ... Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way. [http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/AppendixE/AppendixE.html] | ||
[[President Eisenhower]] warned: | [[President Eisenhower]] warned: | ||
Revision as of 19:57, December 29, 2009
Scientific bias is the assumption that a theory is true or false without evidence one way or another, or the attempt to dismiss or discourage research efforts to confirm or deny the theory - often on political or ideological grounds.
A physicist wrote:
- ... Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way. [1]
President Eisenhower warned:
- "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite." [1]
The American Psychological Association, for example, opposes reparative therapy for homosexuals (even if they volunteer for it), although they themselves acknowledge that there's no proof it does any harm:
- ... there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments. [2]
Funding
- ... Pride, fear and power all influence how research funding is allocated. [3]
References
- ↑ http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.109
- ↑ http://www.aglp.org/pages/position.html#Anchor-55000 Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists
- ↑ Lies, Damned Lies, and Science by Sherry Seethaler