Scientific Bias

[native]

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

I'm sure that you do.

So, my blue-pants friend, since neither Stephen Gould or John StOnge are "objective," does that mean that they cancel each other out? What is the resulting conclusion? Are they both half right? Is the "truth" somewhere between the two of them?

[JohnStOnge]

So, my blue-pants friend, since neither Stephen Gould or John StOnge are "objective," does that mean that they cancel each other out? What is the resulting conclusion? Are they both half right? Is the "truth" somewhere between the two of them?

I assure you, I am WAY more objective than Stephen J. Gould was. When I say that I am not totally objective, I mean that there are certain things I suspect and so I scrutinize them more closely. I do not do things like suggest that the traditional scientific method be dismissed because sticking to it would not allow me to say things I'd like to say.

[native]

So, my blue-pants friend, since neither Stephen Gould or John StOnge are "objective," does that mean that they cancel each other out? What is the resulting conclusion? Are they both half right? Is the "truth" somewhere between the two of them?

I assure you, I am WAY more objective than Stephen J. Gould was. When I say that I am not totally objective, I mean that there are certain things I suspect and so I scrutinize them more closely. I do not do things like suggest that the traditional scientific method be dismissed because sticking to it would not allow me to say things I'd like to say.

I am not criticizing you, John. I am trying to get one of my favorite fence sitters to pull that fence post out of his arse.

[BlueHen86]

I assure you, I am WAY more objective than Stephen J. Gould was. When I say that I am not totally objective, I mean that there are certain things I suspect and so I scrutinize them more closely. I do not do things like suggest that the traditional scientific method be dismissed because sticking to it would not allow me to say things I'd like to say.

I am not criticizing you, John. I am trying to get one of my favorite fence sitters to pull that fence post out of his arse.

I'm not a fence sitter, I'm objective.

[93henfan]

I am not criticizing you, John. I am trying to get one of my favorite fence sitters to pull that fence post out of his arse.

I'm not a fence sitter, I'm objective.

Exactly. You're either extreme right-wing nut job on this site or you're a fence-sitter. God forbid you actually have views that span both sides of the political spectrum and stray outside the lines while you're coloring. WHACK with the ruler!

[89Hen]

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.

Your two sentences are puzzling to say the least. Read them in reverse order and see if you see what I'm talking about.

[native]

I am not criticizing you, John. I am trying to get one of my favorite fence sitters to pull that fence post out of his arse.

I'm not a fence sitter, I'm objective.

Sometimes that is true, BH!

Other times, it is mush.

[mainejeff]

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.

I'm more worried about the douchebag religious "prophets" out there........at least you can prove douchebag scientists wrong.