Natural bias and proof that science is broken
Our natural biases mean we select information to support what we believe and ignore evidence to the contrary. But does a natural bias extend to thinking science is pointless?
Ben Goldacre’s latest blog outlines evidence that supports a lot of what I have talked about in previous TechNyou blogs. That is, how our natural biases determine that we will cherry pick information that supports these biases and ignore the evidence that might suggest our views are flawed.
Previous TechNyou blogs at:
Avoiding the challenge
As his intro paragraph asks, “What do people do when confronted with scientific evidence that challenges their pre-existing view? Often they will try to ignore it, intimidate it, buy it off, sue it for libel, or reason it away.”
The research Goldacre was talking about suggested that these natural biases also influenced a person’s trust or perception of science as a whole. The following is from his post: “People whose pre-existing stereotypes about homosexuality had been challenged by the scientific evidence presented to them were more inclined to believe that science had nothing to offer, on any question, not just on homosexuality, when compared with people whose views on homosexuality had been reinforced.”
Is science broken?
This might help explain one of the challenges to my job. I am constantly trying to circumvent the ‘he says-she says’ debate that surround many of the controversial technologies – gm foods, nanoparticles, synthetic biology….a situation I have blamed to some extent on these natural biases. If this evidence in Goldacre’s post stacks up I might also be contending with those that think science is pointless – or as Goldacres suggests, “That when presented with unwelcome scientific evidence, it seems, in a desperate bid to retain some consistency in their world view, people would rather conclude that science in general is broken.”
Such pre-determined views or natural bias on a topic makes constructive dialogue that much harder. It certainly makes it more difficult for the simply curious or those yet to form a view (the fence-sitters) to make an informed opinion when they hear only these passionate, polarized and unwavering opinions, and I have experienced a lot of this and I suspect I will continue to.
Bias is natural
Don’t get me wrong, to varying degrees such natural biases likely afflict us all and these views are an essential part of any dialogue when we as a society are trying to determine what the acceptable uses for this burgeoning scientific knowledge are. The problem arises when they dominate the discussion and blot out rational and informed debate.
I just read an article on “evolution of fossils” where the real cause of fossil is much different from Darwin’s theory. Yes, science depends on conclusions based on clues, which depends on experts viewpoint. The public is open to opinions.
I will correct you here. Science doesn’t depend on conclusions based on clues which depend on an experts viewpoint. It starts with an expert’s viewpoint (the hypothesis) which comes from observation and experience. This hypothesis is then tested through robust scientific experimentation. Any conclusions drawn come from the evidence or results of those experiments, experiments which must pass peer-review and be repeatable by others. Science is based on evidence from robust, testable and repeatable experimentation. I would like to think the public can also use the results of science to help form an opinion, though there are many other factors – social, political, ethical…and so on that also need to be considered here. Science gives us knowledge, society has to choose what to do with that knowledge.
Jason
TechNyou