User:Bayes/scienceEssay - Revision history

Bayes: Redirecting to User:Bayes/Essay:Bias in science

2007-07-27T22:02:24Z

Redirecting to User:Bayes/Essay:Bias in science

Bayes at 21:47, July 27, 2007

2007-07-27T21:47:33Z

Bayes at 21:29, July 27, 2007

2007-07-27T21:29:06Z

Bayes at 21:28, July 27, 2007

2007-07-27T21:28:02Z

Bayes at 01:00, July 27, 2007

2007-07-27T01:00:31Z

Bayes: New page: Politics, Religion, and Science Some people are apparently under the impression that scientific findings are heavily influenced by political leanings. Altho...

2007-07-27T00:50:20Z

New page: Politics, Religion, and Science Some people are apparently under the impression that scientific findings are heavily influenced by political leanings. Altho...

New page

Politics, Religion, and Science

[[Talk:theory of relativity|Some people]] are apparently under the impression that scientific findings are heavily influenced by political leanings. Although the funding of scientific endeavors, and policy implementations based upon scientific findings, ARE political in nature, I contend that science as a discipline is not, and that all honest scientists will have the same findings, regardless of their personal beliefs.

Let me be clear that by "science," I mean an impartial, falsifiable effort to model the observable (measurable) universe.

==Reasoning==

#''How would political bias be intentionally introduced?''

It's unclear to me how one would introducing political beliefs into their scientific findings. To do so, a scientist would have to
a.) Identify a current political issue he or she personally feels strongly about (easy to do)
b.) Relate that issue to his or her specific field of interest (hard for many scientists, but perhaps easy for others, such as climate scientists)
c.) Perform a pertinent experiment whose outcome could influence public opinion or those in power (harder still, but possible)
d.) Spin the conclusions in such a way as to deceive the scientific and political communities.

Part d.) is the kicker.

#''Nature is consistent''

Science is, at its core, the study of the natural world. The laws of the natural world are, presumably, the same everywhere in the universe (if they're different, then what's the point of even trying to do science in the first place?). Injecting bias into scientific findings is therefore a dicey proposition, since findings

If science had a political tilt, then we would expect the scientists of one political system to arrive at different con

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:02, July 27, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~''This is a work in progress''~~	+	#REDIRECT [[User:Bayes/Essay:Bias in science]]
−
−	~~=Bias and Science=~~
−
−	~~Some people are apparently under the impression that~~ [[~~Talk~~: ~~Theory of relativity\|established scientific theories~~]] are heavily influenced by political leanings. Although the funding of scientific endeavors, and policy implementations based upon scientific findings, are political in nature, and therefore subject to bias, I contend that science as a discipline is not, and that all honest scientists will have the same findings, regardless of their personal beliefs.
−
−	~~Let me be clear that by "scientific theory," I mean an honest, falsifiable model of the observable (measurable) universe.~~
−
−	~~==Reasoning==~~
−
−	~~=== Science is limited by nature ===~~
−
−	Science is, at its core, the study of the natural world. Honest scientists cannot report any more than they actually observe. Attacking such scientists as "biased" is tantamount to saying that nature and reality themselves carry a bias.
−
−	~~=== Nature is consistent ===~~
−
−	One fundamental assumption of science is that laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe. Injecting bias into scientific findings is therefore a dicey proposition, since findings can be verified simply by doing an experiment again. Frauds are eventually exposed for what they are, and as evidence for a theory accumulates, the chances that it is a fraud cleverly spun in a politically convenient way are reduced.
−
−	~~=== Consensus across political lines ===~~
−
−	If science had a political tilt, then we would expect the scientists of one political system to arrive at different conclusions than those of another. Did Soviet science arrive at drastically different conclusions than Western science during the Cold War? I don't know of any analysis on the subject, but my gut feeling is that the answer is "No." This is related to the above point; carbon atoms in Moscow behave the same way as carbon atoms in New York, so it's hard to imagine that the basic conclusions about carbon atoms would differ between the two locales.
−
−	~~== Other kinds of bias in science ==~~
−
−	This argument does not intend to suggest that all features of science are immune to bias. Individual scientists are human beings, and they strive to become respected in their fields, win prizes, get funding, and may have other incentives. As such, they can be tempted, even unconsciously, to obtain or interpret conclusions that they "expect" to see. That kind of bias, while certainly a concern, diminishes as more and more evidence accumulates for a particular theory. Moreover, it applies to individuals or groups of fallible beings, and does not apply to the scientific discipline.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 =Bias and Science=
-Some people are apparently under the impression that scientific findings are heavily influenced by political leanings.  Although the funding of scientific endeavors, and policy implementations based upon scientific findings, ARE political in nature, I contend that science as a discipline is not, and that all honest scientists will have the same findings, regardless of their personal beliefs.
+Some people are apparently under the impression that [[Talk: Theory of relativity|established scientific theories]] are heavily influenced by political leanings.  Although the funding of scientific endeavors, and policy implementations based upon scientific findings, are political in nature, and therefore subject to bias, I contend that science as a discipline is not, and that all honest scientists will have the same findings, regardless of their personal beliefs.
-Let me be clear that by "science," I mean an honest, falsifiable effort to model the observable (measurable) universe.
+Let me be clear that by "scientific theory," I mean an honest, falsifiable model of the observable (measurable) universe.
 ==Reasoning==
@@ Line 9: / Line 11: @@
 === Science is limited by nature ===
 Science is, at its core, the study of the natural world.  Honest scientists cannot report any more than they actually observe.  Attacking such scientists as "biased" is tantamount to saying that nature and reality themselves carry a bias.
 === Nature is consistent ===
-One fundamental assumption of science is that the same everywhere in the universe.  Injecting bias into scientific findings is therefore a dicey proposition, since findings can be verified simply by doing an experiment again.  Frauds are eventually exposed for the frauds they are, and as evidence for a hypothesis accumulates, the chances that it is a fraud cleverly spun in a politically convenient way are reduced.
+One fundamental assumption of science is that laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe.  Injecting bias into scientific findings is therefore a dicey proposition, since findings can be verified simply by doing an experiment again.  Frauds are eventually exposed for what they are, and as evidence for a theory accumulates, the chances that it is a fraud cleverly spun in a politically convenient way are reduced.
 === Consensus across political lines ===
 If science had a political tilt, then we would expect the scientists of one political system to arrive at different conclusions than those of another.  Did Soviet science arrive at drastically different conclusions than Western science during the Cold War?  I don't know of any analysis on the subject, but my gut feeling is that the answer is "No."  This is related to the above point; carbon atoms in Moscow behave the same way as carbon atoms in New York, so it's hard to imagine that the basic conclusions about carbon atoms would differ between the two locales.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, July 27, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Bias and Science	+	=Bias and Science=

	Some people are apparently under the impression that scientific findings are heavily influenced by political leanings. Although the funding of scientific endeavors, and policy implementations based upon scientific findings, ARE political in nature, I contend that science as a discipline is not, and that all honest scientists will have the same findings, regardless of their personal beliefs.		Some people are apparently under the impression that scientific findings are heavily influenced by political leanings. Although the funding of scientific endeavors, and policy implementations based upon scientific findings, ARE political in nature, I contend that science as a discipline is not, and that all honest scientists will have the same findings, regardless of their personal beliefs.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Politics, Religion, and Science
+Bias and Science
-[[Talk:theory of relativity|Some people]] are apparently under the impression that scientific findings are heavily influenced by political leanings.  Although the funding of scientific endeavors, and policy implementations based upon scientific findings, ARE political in nature, I contend that science as a discipline is not, and that all honest scientists will have the same findings, regardless of their personal beliefs.
+Some people are apparently under the impression that scientific findings are heavily influenced by political leanings.  Although the funding of scientific endeavors, and policy implementations based upon scientific findings, ARE political in nature, I contend that science as a discipline is not, and that all honest scientists will have the same findings, regardless of their personal beliefs.
-Let me be clear that by "science," I mean an impartial, falsifiable effort to model the observable (measurable) universe.
+Let me be clear that by "science," I mean an honest, falsifiable effort to model the observable (measurable) universe.
 ==Reasoning==
 === Science is limited by nature ===
 Science is, at its core, the study of the natural world.  Honest scientists cannot report any more than they actually observe.  Attacking such scientists as "biased" is tantamount to saying that nature and reality themselves carry a bias.
 === Nature is consistent ===
-The laws of the natural world are, presumably, the same everywhere in the universe.  Injecting bias into scientific findings is therefore a dicey proposition, since findings can be verified simply by doing an experiment again.  Frauds are eventually exposed for the frauds they are, and as evidence for a hypothesis accumulates, the chances that it is a fraud cleverly spun in a politically convenient way are reduced.
+One fundamental assumption of science is that the same everywhere in the universe.  Injecting bias into scientific findings is therefore a dicey proposition, since findings can be verified simply by doing an experiment again.  Frauds are eventually exposed for the frauds they are, and as evidence for a hypothesis accumulates, the chances that it is a fraud cleverly spun in a politically convenient way are reduced.
 === Consensus across political lines ===
-If science had a political tilt, then we would expect the scientists of one political system to arrive at different conclusions than those of another.  Did Soviet science arrive at drastically different conclusions than Western science during the Cold War?  I don't know of any statistics on the matter, but my gut feeling is that the answer is "No."  This is related to the above point; carbon atoms in Moscow behave the same way as carbon atoms in New York, so it's hard to imagine that the basic conclusions about carbon atoms would differ between the two locales.
+If science had a political tilt, then we would expect the scientists of one political system to arrive at different conclusions than those of another.  Did Soviet science arrive at drastically different conclusions than Western science during the Cold War?  I don't know of any analysis on the subject, but my gut feeling is that the answer is "No."  This is related to the above point; carbon atoms in Moscow behave the same way as carbon atoms in New York, so it's hard to imagine that the basic conclusions about carbon atoms would differ between the two locales.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
-#''How would political bias be intentionally introduced?''
+=== Science is limited by nature ===
-It's unclear to me how one would introducing political beliefs into their scientific findings.  To do so, a scientist would have to
+Science is, at its core, the study of the natural world.  Honest scientists cannot report any more than they actually observe.  Attacking such scientists as "biased" is tantamount to saying that nature and reality themselves carry a bias.
-#''Nature is consistent''
+The laws of the natural world are, presumably, the same everywhere in the universe.  Injecting bias into scientific findings is therefore a dicey proposition, since findings can be verified simply by doing an experiment again.  Frauds are eventually exposed for the frauds they are, and as evidence for a hypothesis accumulates, the chances that it is a fraud cleverly spun in a politically convenient way are reduced.
-If science had a political tilt, then we would expect the scientists of one political system to arrive at different con
+=== Consensus across political lines ===