Scientific Bias

[SeattleGriz]

In light of Climategate and how the involved scientists where caught lying, manipulating and stonewalling, how many other subjects do you think scientists are biased towards?

One poster on here told me that only douchebag scientists manipulate data to suit their needs. I am thinking there are a ton of douchebag scientists out there, and always have.

In fact, I even remember some telling me I was a disgrace to The U of Montana and my degree because I put more belief into Intelligent design than I do Evolution. My main concern with the evolutionary scientists was that I had run into them in school and they were just like the global warming crowd. Ready to label anyone that doesn't believe in their cash cow as ill informed and readily dismissible. Quite odd considering debate should be wide open and the truth defeats all.

Think about it. If a college professor believed in Intelligent design, how fast do you think he would lose grant money or his position? That causes bias.

Not looking to fire up that debate again, just wondering what other subjects are run by money and as such, are biased?

[93henfan]

I'm more concerned with people who are so biased that they deny overwhelming scientific evidence, even after eliminating any bias from biased scientists.

And to answer your question, I think it's safe to say that every field of science has bias if humans are performing it.

[CID1990]

Agreed that scientists, like all professionals, are human. There are plenty of them who have integrity, and then there are plenty who do not.

The ones with integrity are very easy to spot. They are generally the the ones that present data objectively, and admit when the data is incomplete. There are scientists on both sides of the climate change argument who have obviously drawn very questionable conclusions, and these are also pretty easy to spot. They are the ones that say things like, "Anthropogenic climate change is settled science" AND "Climate change is not anthropogenic."

I think that the latest flap over the IPCC has had one very helpful effect. It has caused a lot of people to realize that global mechanics are not an exact science. Even if we had precise climate data for the last two thousand years, we would still not be able to make absolute predictions. For every scientist that says we will all be drowning in ten years of we don't cut carbon emissions, there is another one who says exactly the opposite.

[Pwns]

Any science that can help forward their world view, they will be biased in favor of...

Macroevolution appeals to people who are fanatical materialists and reductionists. The theory of anthropogenic global warming appeals to collectivists, anti-capitalists, internationalists, and misanthropic ecosystem worshippers. Too many scientists tend to be in thiose camps.

[youngterrier]

Science is not biased in itself. the problem is that we have a hard time distinguishing fact from theory, fact is irrefutable whereas theory from a certain viewpoint can be but from another it is not. There's good science behind evolution, global warming, etc and I tend to believe in both but at the same time I understand that they are not irrefutable

[Skjellyfetti]

Evolution is pretty damn irrefutable. It's about as close to irrefutable as the theory of gravity.

Is there any other legit theory with empirical data that puts the theory of evolution into question? No? Then, that sounds like it's irrefutable scientifically at the moment.

[SeattleGriz]

Evolution is pretty damn irrefutable. It's about as close to irrefutable as the theory of gravity.

Is there any other legit theory with empirical data that puts the theory of evolution into question? No? Then, that sounds like it's irrefutable scientifically at the moment.

This isn't about whether Evolution is correct or not, it is about those in the scientific community that are unwilling to allow opposing viewpoints, because they are influenced by money, or tenure.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of Evolution? I have learned that Evolution is a broad term and is defined differently by many people.

A theory becomes a law when it beats all challenges and is found to be correct all the time. Wouldn't you think those that ascribe to Evolution would welcome the Intelligent Design crowd, because if Evolution is correct, shouldn't it stomp the crap out of Intelligent Design?

Not only stomp the crap out of it, but actually strengthen the case for it to become law?

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, I don't even understand how "intelligent design" could be considered science... so, no, I'm not suprised if serious scientists don't welcome it. Again, there's no empirical evidence for intelligent design. There's no way to study intelligent design scientifically. It ain't science.

There is nothing wrong with believing in it... but, it's theology... not science.

[SeattleGriz]

Well, I don't even understand how "intelligent design" could be considered science... so, no, I'm not suprised if serious scientists don't welcome it. Again, there's no empirical evidence for intelligent design. There's no way to study intelligent design scientifically. It ain't science.

There is nothing wrong with believing in it... but, it's theology... not science.

When you say evolution has empirical (observed) evidence, what evidence are you referring to?

For what it is worth, I have said many times that ID's only mode is to try and tear down Evolution, because I don't believe ID can be proven either. I believe that because I am Christian. If we can prove God exists, why the need for faith. Don't need faith for something you know exists. A little simplistic, but my thoughts.

But even if ID is only trying to tear down Evolution, then why the fear of debate? Believing we evolved from a pool of water and amino acids to all that we are today takes as much faith as it does to believe that maybe, just maybe there is an Intelligent Designer (not necessarily a God).

[Skjellyfetti]

When you say evolution has empirical (observed) evidence, what evidence are you referring to?

There's a bunch of easily observable evidence... viruses mutating and evolving to counter immunities, small plant and animal life mutating and evolving to cope with polluted environment, etc.

For what it is worth, I have said many times that ID's only mode is to try and tear down Evolution, because I don't believe ID can be proven either. I believe that because I am Christian. If we can prove God exists, why the need for faith. Don't need faith for something you know exists. A little simplistic, but my thoughts.

But even if ID is only trying to tear down Evolution, then why the fear of debate? Believing we evolved from a pool of water and amino acids to all that we are today takes as much faith as it does to believe that maybe, just maybe there is an Intelligent Designer (not necessarily a God).

I think you answer your own question... for Intelligent Design to be a part of the debate (and I assume you mean the real scientific debate in scholarly journals, publications, etc. and not an hour long debate with Richard Dawkins in some auditorium) they have to provide actual scientific evidence. As you admit... ID requires faith in an unprovable, unquantifiable, unempiracle deity. Why should scientists waste their time debating issues not related to science?

[JohnStOnge]

...how many other subjects do you think scientists are biased towards?

To answer your question: I think that preservationist environmental and egalitarian biases are prevalent among scientists today. By preservationist environmentalism I mean a belief that the world as it would be without human impacts is a "better" situation than the world as it is. I think that accounts for a lot of what is behind the "global warming" thing. Many basically want to believe that the impact humankind is having is "bad." Speaking of that, here is a report of a third recently-revealed definitely unsubstantiated claim by the IPCC on the impacts of anthropogenic climate change:

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/now-un-clima ... ml?from=tn

The egalitarian bias is reflected in such things as pronouncements on homosexuality, race, and gender. To me an example of that is the American Psychiatric Associations decision remove homosexuality from the list of disorders in its diagnostic and statistical manual in 1973. Another, I think, is the oft practiced declaration "There is no scientific basis for the concept of race." That kind of stuff.

[JohnStOnge]

Evolution is pretty damn irrefutable. It's about as close to irrefutable as the theory of gravity.

Is there any other legit theory with empirical data that puts the theory of evolution into question? No? Then, that sounds like it's irrefutable scientifically at the moment.

The first time I saw the claim that the certainty associated with the overall theory of evolution is comparable to the certainty associated with the theory of gravity Stephen J. Gould was making it. It gets repeated all the time. But I just don't think it's valid.

When it comes to inference of cause and effect, the highest level of certainty comes from validation through controlled experimentation. Experiments are planned, results are predicted, experiments are conducted, and the predicted results are observed. With gravity, controlled experiments are easy to perform. For example: Somebody can predict that if they drop a shot put from X feet above a certain point on the earth the shot put will move towards the earth and take Y seconds to reach the ground. Then they can conduct the experiment and show that they were correct. They can test the idea that mass makes a difference in accelleration by doing it on the moon. Or than can predict the behavior of space probes based in part on gravitational theory. They can predict how gravity will impact the space probes and observe that the predicted effect is manifested.

The overall theory of evolution is almost entirely observational. A bunch of things that have been observed are consistent with the theory of cause and effect. But that is not the same as experimental validation. For example: The overall theory of evolution includes the idea that populations of single celled organisms gave rise to populations of multicellular organisms and eventually to populations of very complex multicellular organisms such as blue whales. Nobody has conducted a successful experiment to validate even the first step in that process. In other words, nobody has conducted a controlled experiment during which they were able to make a population of single celled organisms give rise to a population (or populations) of multicellular organisms).

There's just no way the certainty associated with evolutionary theory is comparable to that of gravitational theory. It's not even close.

[Pwns]

There's a bunch of easily observable evidence... viruses mutating and evolving to counter immunities, small plant and animal life mutating and evolving to cope with polluted environment, etc

Comparing changes over time in viral particles and single-celled organisms to those of organisms that have hundreds of billions of cells and far more complex genomes shows a lack of understanding of biology. Bacteria have very short generation times and they can afford to mix and match genes to see if by chance they come up with something that makes them better suited for their environment when there are environmental stressors.

The latter case doesn't represent true evolution but instead a genetic drift that shifts the LD50 value for the population upward. They are not immune to the toxins, they just have a higher tolerance for it because those that had a lower tolerance for it have disappeared from the populations gene pool.

Macroevolution involves far more complex processes like the evolution of single-celled organisms into multi-cellular ones, and the addition of new material to the genome along with new ways of organizing the DNA (how is it that some organisms have genomes much more complex than others?).

When anyone has created a young-earth like environment near a star somewhere and is able to watch over it for several billion years to see if intelligent live evolves, let me know.

[Skjellyfetti]

The latter case doesn't represent true evolution but instead a genetic drift that shifts the LD50 value for the population upward. They are not immune to the toxins, they just have a higher tolerance for it because those that had a lower tolerance for it have disappeared from the populations gene pool.

I'm no scientist... but, it sounds like you just described evolution to me.

Macroevolution involves far more complex processes like the evolution of single-celled organisms into multi-cellular ones, and the addition of new material to the genome along with new ways of organizing the DNA (how is it that some organisms have genomes much more complex than others?).

I know the examples I described are on a much more simple level. But, it's the only thing observable... and that's what he was asking for.

And, sorry, I still trust Universities (I know, LIBERAL BIAS!!! THEY'RE ALL COMMIES, ETC!).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 0367a.html

http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/ ... lution.htm

Close to a million scholarly articles on "viral evolution":
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?sourc ... =en&tab=ws

Yeah, it's on the microlevel... but, it's still evolution.

[SeattleGriz]

When you say evolution has empirical (observed) evidence, what evidence are you referring to?

There's a bunch of easily observable evidence... viruses mutating and evolving to counter immunities, small plant and animal life mutating and evolving to cope with polluted environment, etc.

I think you answer your own question... for Intelligent Design to be a part of the debate (and I assume you mean the real scientific debate in scholarly journals, publications, etc. and not an hour long debate with Richard Dawkins in some auditorium) they have to provide actual scientific evidence. As you admit... ID requires faith in an unprovable, unquantifiable, unempiracle deity. Why should scientists waste their time debating issues not related to science?

This is my fault. I should have been more specific. I should have said Darwinism vs ID. You believe Evolution is change over time, which I would have to agree with, as that is obvious.

That is why I asked in the first place, but as stated, I led this conversation down an incorrect statement.

My point (a better one this time), is that scientists that used to believe in Darwinism are now starting to doubt that the natural selection/mutation model as adequate enough to create all the diversity found on Earth.

It is those scientists that are losing tenure and being ridiculed by the Darwinists, much like the Global Warming crowd ridiculed anyone that disagreed with them.

[JohnStOnge]

On some of the discussion above: Evolution is change and populations of organisms have been observed to change. There is argument that speciation has been observed. An example of a set of examples of what are argued to be speciation events can be viewed at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html . I think whether or not speciation was really observed and confirmed is debatable. However, let's accept it as true.

A fruit fly is still a fruit fly. A mouse is still a mouse. A goatsbeard flower is still a goatsbeard flower. With respect to discussion of viruses changing: A norovirus is still a norovirus. A Hepatitis A virus is still a Hepatitis A virus. So on and so forth.

That is a long way from what's believed to have happened according to the theory of evolution. According to the overall theory of evolution, I have ancestors that were single celled organisms. Without looking it up I presume I had reptilian ancestors. Personally, I believe the overall theory of evolution and believe that I did. But the certainty associated with that is not comparable to the certainty associated with the idea that objects will behave in certain ways under given sets of circumstances according to the theory of gravitation. Nor is it comparable to the certainty associated with, say, the idea that viruses can cause disease in plants and/or animals. I think that there are many, many things in science that are established with more certainty than the overall theory of evolution is.

And that points at the beef I have. Like Stephen J. Gould taking that standard deceptive cop out about nothing being "certain" in science and saying stuff like "I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow" as though the certainty associated with the idea that humans have ape ancestors (which I believe they do) is comparable to the certainty associated with apples falling in the context of this planetary system. It's deceptive and intellectualy dishonest, I think.

[kalm]

On some of the discussion above: Evolution is change and populations of organisms have been observed to change. There is argument that speciation has been observed. An example of a set of examples of what are argued to be speciation events can be viewed at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html . I think whether or not speciation was really observed and confirmed is debatable. However, let's accept it as true.

A fruit fly is still a fruit fly. A mouse is still a mouse. A goatsbeard flower is still a goatsbeard flower. With respect to discussion of viruses changing: A norovirus is still a norovirus. A Hepatitis A virus is still a Hepatitis A virus. So on and so forth.

That is a long way from what's believed to have happened according to the theory of evolution. According to the overall theory of evolution, I have ancestors that were single celled organisms. Without looking it up I presume I had reptilian ancestors. Personally, I believe the overall theory of evolution and believe that I did. But the certainty associated with that is not comparable to the certainty associated with the idea that objects will behave in certain ways under given sets of circumstances according to the theory of gravitation. Nor is it comparable to the certainty associated with, say, the idea that viruses can cause disease in plants and/or animals. I think that there are many, many things in science that are established with more certainty than the overall theory of evolution is.

And that points at the beef I have. Like Stephen J. Gould taking that standard deceptive cop out about nothing being "certain" in science and saying stuff like "I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow" as though the certainty associated with the idea that humans have ape ancestors (which I believe they do) is comparable to the certainty associated with apples falling in the context of this planetary system. It's deceptive and intellectualy dishonest, I think.

Perhaps Stephen J. Gould understands both concepts better than you.

Evolution should be taught as a theory, just like gravity, I.D. or Christianity.

Some theories are easier to prove than others.

[JohnStOnge]

Perhaps Stephen J. Gould understands both concepts better than you.

What Stephen J. Gould understood is that the scientific method would not support his assertions. I read him writing about that one time. He called the traditional scientific method "sophomoric." He did that because he knew that if you apply the traditional scientific method you can't express the kind of certainty about certain things as he did.

The key concept at issue is not hard to understand by anyone: The hightest level of certainty in science is provied by validation through controlled experimentation. Gould was being disingenuous by comparing the idea of apples falling to the idea of human beings having ape ancestors. The level of certainty associated with "an apple will fall when I release it while standing on the surface of the Earth unless some force is exerted to cause it to do otherwise" is much, much higher than the level of certainty associated with "human beings have ape ancestors."

Gould was intellectually dishonest, as many others have been, in using that "nothing is certain in science" angle in order to create the impression that the overall theory of evolution is as certain as it gets in science. As a practical matter, many things are essentially certain in science.

[JohnStOnge]

By the way, I think the late Stephen J. Gould is an great example of bias among scientists. Brilliant man. But to call him an objective scientist would be extremely questionable.

[BlueHen86]

By the way, I think the late Stephen J. Gould is an great example of bias among scientists. Brilliant man. But to call him an objective scientist would be extremely questionable.

As would be calling you objective...

[SeattleGriz]

Perhaps Stephen J. Gould understands both concepts better than you.

Evolution should be taught as a theory, just like gravity, I.D. or Christianity.

Some theories are easier to prove than others.

Not piling on John, for I think he always presents a solid case, but you are correct kalm. We tend to discuss the subject at such a very basic level that we don't do it justice. Now, with that being said, I will say it is tough for those that do have a solid grasp of the sciences to explain it to others.

I remember listening to my advisor give a lecture when I was a freshman, and he seemed as if he stammered quite frequently during his lectures. Almost as if he was lost for words. Then, as I proceeded through the classes, he got better. Then it dawned on me. He was having a difficult time dumbing it down to us freshmen, but when he could really let his intellect fly, he sounded so much better.

[JohnStOnge]

As would be calling you objective...

Well, of course I think I'm as objective as it gets. The main thing is that I believe in sticking to the traditional scientific method and I think discipline in that regard has been thrown to the wind. When you see declarations such as "second hand smoke causes health problems" you're seeing evidence of that. There's an epidemic of declaring cause and effect without the benefit of controlled experimentation. When you see me attacking things like the anthropogenic global warming thing it's not because I don't think there's some reasonable basis for concluding what they've concluded. It's because I think they are exaggerating the certainty associated with their cause and effect conclusions under circumstances where those conclusions have not and can not be validated through controlled experimentation.

I'll admit there is a point at which, as a pratical matter, you don't need a controlled experiment to declare cause and effect. We don't need a controlled experiment to say that lions can cause the deaths of wildebeast via attacking and eating them. And I suppose the point at which the line is drawn is subjective.

But Stephen J. Gould specifically railed against the scientific method. He wrote about how if you stick to the scientific method there are all sorts of things you can never claim as firmly established. I remember him using what comes out of astronomy as an example. It's like he thought that if the rules of the scientific method put you in a position where there was no possibility that you could ever firmly establish cause and effect that meant the rules don't apply.

It pains me that I can't locate the piece in which he attacked the scientific method so that people have to take my word for it that he did it. About all I can do in terms of referencing it is that it probably appeared in either Science News or Discover during the second half of the 1980s or early 1990s. I used to have subscriptions to those two and I'm pretty sure that's where I read that particular essay of his. Since then I've tried several times to find it on the internet without success.

Let me say that one reason I wish so badly I could locate that piece is that I view it as Gould indirectly admitting that the overall theory of evolution is not established at the highest level of certainty. That was the point. He was basically admitting that if you stick to the traditional scientific method you can't say it's a "fact" as he liked to say. So he argued that the scientific method is "sophomoric" so we shouldn't worry about that.

[JohnStOnge]

Then it dawned on me. He was having a difficult time dumbing it down to us freshmen, but when he could really let his intellect fly, he sounded so much better.

I think that the details of a particular discipline can be very complicated but I think it should be easy to impart what is required for establishement of cause and effect. Here it is, taken from http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_la ... l#Heading6 (physics is the discipline there):

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

You don't have to be deeply steeped in science education to realize that Step 4 is not being completed in an awful lot of cases. Basically, it should be pretty easy to inform people that if there were no controlled experiments you can't infer cause and effect. Then it should not be difficult for the consumer of scientific information to put everything to that test. Simply ask, "Has this been validated through controlled experimentation?"

I won't post it like I have in other places unless somebody calls me on it and wants me to show it but I even have an excerpt from a graduate level statistics book I like to use in which the author says that it's not even a scientific study if there's no controlled experiment. This author would call the whole "climate change" study effort "observational study" and draws a clear distinction between that kind of endeavor and a "scientific study."

[JohnStOnge]

So here we go, now that everybody knows experimental validation is necessary. Back to the overall theory of evolution:

For the overall theory of evolution to work, we have to show that a population of single celled organisms can give rise to a population or some populations of multicellular organisms. Not colonies of single celled organisms either. Multicelluar organisms.

So we put it to the test. Has the idea that a population of single celled organisms can give rise to a population or some populations of multicellular organisms been established through controlled experimentation? To my knowledge the answer is "no." If that's the case, case closed. The test has not been met. An idea at the foundation of and essential to the overall theory of evolution has not been unequivocally established.

And if it turns out that such experiments have been successfully completed and somebody makes me aware of that then my view will change. That particular critical aspect of evolutionary theory will have been validated. Only thing is that I might want to see the actual experimental design. I'll admit that I'd probably want to see the details because evolution is one of those areas such that I think there is a tendency to overstate the case. I guess that means I'm not objective. But I believe that even if I wanted to see the design I'd be honest with myself about whether or not the experiment really supported the inference.

[BlueHen86]

As would be calling you objective...

Well, of course I think I'm as objective as it gets.

I'm sure that you do.