Luc Turpin

I am saying that my positiion has shifted. I believed before that it was the process that was also at fault. Now I say that the three points indicated in the post are the ones that I share with those mentioned in my references,not the process. I am moving on my position! Have you ever moved on something that I have said? Maybe you should read your own caption for inspiration.

1- Good one; plead no contest 2-Holotropic mind with years of observations and experimentation; Where is mind-searching for mind in nature-how does mind work through brain with 35 references; The Secret Language of Cells backed by numerous studies; An evidence-based critical review of the mind-brain identity; are all examples of things that have merit, but are going nowhere is science. Other numerous studies that are out of the ordinary and that I have posted in past threads (met mostly with silence. My example of the Theory of evolution is as credible as your example of laser cooling and trapping, with different outcomes. 3- And if it has gone successfully through the falsification process and still does not get studied? Like the examples given above. 4- Have you seen any major paradigm shift lately in comparison to before? Is it because science is getting closer to the wholly grail or things have changed in science where new ideas are harder to come by. Before, It took one or two names on a paper, now it takes more, even hundreds (hadron collider papers). Where does creativity come from, a group or a few brilliant individuals with a dirrerent mind set. 5- Causality is true; I am not the one advancing this position, one of my references is. Have you seen many papers proposing holism as their basis for their studies? 6- Close-ended as refractory to ideas that run counter to the more agreed upon worldview. I will be off-line tomorrow. At 4- should have said "new paradigm ideas", because new ideas existing inside existing paragdims, there are plently.

1- <sigh> thought that I was moving towards firmer ground. 2- My evidence is not quantifiable, but at the very least, I am not the only one upholding these views 3, 4- I often see new ideas popping up in the literature, but when I look at the same literature a few years afterward, I rarely see any follow-up on them nor integration or movement of models. Best example for me in my reading through the years is Evolution Theory where it started as "evolution, one random mutation at a time" to an almost avalanche of processes for evolution being uncovered (from vertical to horizontal gene transfer; a big deal), but the theory, at least for me, seems generally unchanged, lying on top of the same foundation as before. I say that based on acquired evidence of the last few decades, this same foundation should have shifted, and it did not, at least not as much as it should have. 4, 5-Much less resistance to innovation of the same kind, much more resistance to innovation of a different kind. My first two points of contention indicated above would not slow down the quantity, quality of studies nor the speed of change, or immense success of science as long as these innovations were not putting into question models. If I have an idea based on different basic science assumptions it might not be given a fair chance, hence less possible paradigm shifts. Not saying that models cannot be challenged, but that you have to wake up really early to do so. 6- Causality, determinism and reductionism are ways of skinning a cat, but other ways exist as well that might bring a different-new perspective to things. 7- I think that the point is that the process is close-ended not open-ended

Upon more careful reading of the references that I provided, I am more inclined to believe that the scientific process has checks and balances to weed out many of the unwarranted effects of biases. However, I maintain my position that there aisle bias in science based on the following 1- that « many fields become attached to current theories and new ideas are not given a fair chance to compete, as established scientists and proponents of currently accepted theories influence funding, tenure decisions and pre-publication peer review. ». 2- « all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research » 3- that « The human mind is liable to make biased interpretations. The paradigm supposes that an objective truth can be reached with rigorous scientific methods. Human risk of bias is defined as threats to validity of study results that cannot be controlled even by rigorous scientific methods. »

Need to keep my promise to swansont though; next post of mine might be helpful in restructuring the debate As promised Some references are in line with my contention, but one in particular, a meta-analysis appears to indicate that bias effects are minimal and contained in certain domains. The article that I could not copy-paste was especially enlightening. Maybe my limited review of literature can be helpful in our discussion. A search was conducted of Google, Google Scholar and PubMed. 1- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917255/#:~:text=In%20research%2C%20bias%20occurs%20when,and%20publication%20(Figure%201). Bias can occur in the planning, data collection, analysis, and publication phases of research. Understanding research bias allows readers to critically and independently review the scientific literature and avoid treatments which are suboptimal or potentially harmful. A thorough understanding of bias and how it affects study results is essential for the practice of evidence-based medicine. 2- https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18326/1/may-bias-in-science.pdf Moral, social, political, and other “nonepistemic” values can lead to bias in science, from prioritizing certain topics over others to the rationalization of questionable research practices. Such values might seem particularly common or powerful in the social sciences, given their subject matter. However, I argue first that the well-documented phenomenon of motivated reasoning provides a useful framework for understanding when values guide scientific inquiry (in pernicious or productive ways). Second, this analysis reveals a parity thesis: values influence the social and natural sciences about equally, particularly because both are so prominently affected by desires for social credit and status, including recognition and career advancement. Ultimately, bias in natural and social science is both natural and social— that is, a part of human nature and considerably motivated by a concern for social status (and its maintenance). Whether the pervasive influence of values is inimical to the sciences is a separate question. We have seen how many of the putative biases that affect science can be explained and illuminated in terms of motivated reasoning, which yields a general understanding of how a researcher’s goals and values can influence scientific practice (whether positively or negatively). ……………. In particular, one’s reasoning is more often motivated by a desire to gain social credit (e.g. recognition among peers) than a desire to promote a moral or political ideology. Although there may be discernible differences in the quality of research across scientific domains, all are influenced by researchers’ values, as manifested in their motivations. We began with the notion that bias in science is a problem, and a particularly pressing one given concerns about replicability and questionable research practices. However, I have not attempted to adjudicate whether the influence of any values in natural or social science is ultimately pernicious. My goal has only been to make the case that we ought to treat like cases alike. When value influences are detrimental, we should regard them as disconcerting in both areas of science; when values are innocuous or even beneficial, we ought to treat them as such in both domains. Whether scientific domains are companions in innocence or in guilt, we should recognize that motivated reasoning influences a wide range of research, which makes vivid how inherent values are to the whole enterprise of science. 3- https://communities.springernature.com/posts/ethics-of-hype-and-bias-in-science Scientists are only human. As such, they can fall prey to biases in their professional endeavors. Biased scientists are an inevitability, however the view of science as an objective enterprise assumes that these biases can be overcome by the scrutiny of a peer review process. Biased scientists need not necessarily give rise to biased research. The concept of self-correcting science should ensure this. This notion is associated with the idea of replication, where results that fail to replicate will not be propagated in the scientific literature. Another important step in this process are meta-analyses, in which an assembly of studies examining the same question, with varying degrees of individual error, are statistically analyzed in order to find a ‘true effect’. However, both these processes are dependent on the publication process. For this reason, publication bias is one of the biggest threats to the integrity of scientific knowledge. Another common type of bias resulting from the social dimension of science comes in the form of the scientific dogma. An essential part of being a scientist is acknowledging that knowledge is not absolute. Especially today, when methodology and scientific instruments evolve at a prompt pace, improving the resolution of the data obtained, there is always the possibility that some piece of knowledge needs to be reevaluated. In fact, this is one of the bases for self-correcting science. Still, many fields become attached to current theories and new ideas are not given a fair chance to compete, as established scientists and proponents of currently accepted theories influence funding, tenure decisions and pre-publication peer review. In this case, not only are scientists failing to uphold the principles of organized skepticism and disinterestedness, but they also fail to respect their fellow colleagues, many times on the basis of self-interest or for the sake of defeating a rival’s argument. 4- https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1618569114 Numerous biases are believed to affect the scientific literature, but their actual prevalence across disciplines is unknown. To gain a comprehensive picture of the potential imprint of bias in science, we probed for the most commonly postulated bias-related patterns and risk factors, in a large random sample of meta-analyses taken from all disciplines. The magnitude of these biases varied widely across fields and was overall relatively small. However, we consistently observed a significant risk of small, early, and highly cited studies to overestimate effects and of studies not published in peer-reviewed journals to underestimate them. We also found at least partial confirmation of previous evidence suggesting that US studies and early studies might report more extreme effects, although these effects were smaller and more heterogeneously distributed across meta-analyses and disciplines. Authors publishing at high rates and receiving many citations were, overall, not at greater risk of bias. However, effect sizes were likely to be overestimated by early-career researchers, those working in small or long-distance collaborations, and those responsible for scientific misconduct, supporting hypotheses that connect bias to situational factors, lack of mutual control, and individual integrity. Some of these patterns and risk factors might have modestly increased in intensity over time, particularly in the social sciences. Our findings suggest that, besides one being routinely cautious that published small, highly-cited, and earlier studies may yield inflated results, the feasibility and costs of interventions to attenuate biases in the literature might need to be discussed on a discipline-specific and topic-specific basis 5- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33871836/ Clinical epidemiological research entails assessing the burden and etiology of disease, the diagnosis and prognosis of disease, the efficacy of preventive measures or treatments, the analysis of the risks and benefits of diagnostic and therapeutic maneuvers, and the evaluation of health care services. In all areas, the main focus is to describe the relationship between exposure and outcome and to determine one of the following: prevalence, incidence, cause, prognosis, or effect of treatment. The accuracy of these conclusions is determined by the validity of the study. Validity is determined by addressing potential biases and possible confounders that may be responsible for the observed association. Therefore, it is important to understand the types of bias that exist and also to be able to assess their impact on the magnitude and direction of the observed effect. The following chapter reviews the epidemiological concepts of selection bias, information bias, intervention bias, and confounding and discusses ways in which these sources of bias can be minimized. 6- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32511249/ Both the natural and the social sciences are currently facing a deep "reproducibility crisis". Two important factors in this crisis have been the selective reporting of results and methodological problems. In this article, we examine a fusion of these two factors. More specifically, we demonstrate that the uncritical import of Boolean optimization algorithms from electrical engineering into some areas of the social sciences in the late 1980s has induced algorithmic bias on a considerable scale over the last quarter century. Potentially affected are all studies that have used a method nowadays known as Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Drawing on replication material for 215 peer-reviewed QCA articles from across 109 high-profile management, political science and sociology journals, we estimate the extent this problem has assumed in empirical work. Our results suggest that one in three studies is affected, one in ten severely so. More generally, our article cautions scientists against letting methods and algorithms travel too easily across disparate disciplines without sufficient prior evaluation of their suitability for the context in hand. 7- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30990003/ The human mind is liable to make biased interpretations. The biomedical paradigm supposes that an objective truth can be reached with rigorous scientific methods. Human risk of bias is defined in this paper as threats to validity of study results that cannot be controlled even by rigorous scientific methods. 8- https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yZmNCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=bias+in+science&ots=CS_hO0TlW1&sig=PrHZdhGxIeoLt002mVdMm2f5C6E&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bias%20in%20science&f=false Cannot cut and paste, but a very good read. 9- https://elifesciences.org/articles/44929 Scientists seek to eliminate all forms of bias from their research. However, all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research. Here, we argue that since these 'philosophical biases' cannot be avoided, they need to be debated critically by scientists and philosophers of science. 10- https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/abs/10.1148/radiol.2383041109 Bias is a form of systematic error that can affect scientific investigations and distort the measurement process. A biased study loses validity in relation to the degree of the bias. While some study designs are more prone to bias, its presence is universal. It is difficult or even impossible to completely eliminate bias. In the process of attempting to do so, new bias may be introduced or a study may be rendered less generalizable. Therefore, the goals are to minimize bias and for both investigators and readers to comprehend its residual effects, limiting misinterpretation and misuse of data. Numerous forms of bias have been described, and the terminology can be confusing, overlapping, and specific to a medical specialty. Much of the terminology is drawn from the epidemiology literature and may not be common parlance for radiologists. In this review, various types of bias are discussed, with emphasis on the radiology literature, and common study designs in which bias occurs are presented.

Data sets were provided to support or not my assumption of a homogenous view in science, which is what you asked me to provide evidence for. I did and my assumption does not hold up to the scrutiny of evidence. this has nothing to do with biases; I was just responding to your request that I was making up assumptions and not backing them with evidence. Again, evidence does not back up my assumption. as for biases, if I have the time this week, I will do a review of literature on pubmed and query “bias in science” and see what I can pull together. Both sides; articles saying that there is and articles that say that there is not; then we can have a discussion on the subject with data in hand. And, my last posts with you had nothing to do with biases or deity. Just homogeneity of views in science

On the contrary, not biased. I was ascertaining that my course of action was unbiased as I was pulling data in support and not in support of my assumption. So far, I am on the losing end with 2 of 3 in support of a mix of worldviews which is not conducive to the making of a homogenous view of science. Again, not quite what I expected What do you mean? The data does not support my assumption of a homogenous worldview. I am on the losing end of it and you say that I am cherry picking data that does not meet my expectations? why would I do that? Your immediate expectation of me having preconceived views and then seeking out data, may very well be your own biases towards me that are at play. 1- All of the data collected over the centuries has not contributed to the postulation of an accepted theory of mind. We still do not know how matter creates mind 2- If mind is all over nature or outside of brain, good luck trying to pull it into a materialistic worldview. At the very least, the predominant materialist hypothesis, that of an emergent property of nature, would be seriously in doubt. However, I agree that conjuring the supernatural, might not be needed if mind is all over nature, but materialism would be in trouble nonetheless. Think about it, a conscious field or force. That would upend a lot of things in science. And this is the hypothesis that a minority of neuroscientists are making. Now time to test and this can only happen if biases towards this hypothesis are lowered.

Doing much worse with scientists although this is old 2009 According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/#:~:text=According to the poll%2C just,universal spirit or higher power. The unbiased search continues and I am losing This one is more in line with my expectations But a recent survey published in the leading science journal Natureconclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding. 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didn’t respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The unbelief is far higher than the percentage among scientists in general, or in the whole population. trying to get the exacy reference

I have better than that and it is not in my favour, at least as it pertains to mind. “The 2020 PhilPapers Survey of Anglophone academic philosophers’ views has just been published. On the philosophy of mind, physicalism (AKA materialism) remains the view of the majority, but only just, with 51.9% of philosophers professing to accept/lean towards physicalism about the mind. However, a very large minority of 32.1% align with non-physicalism about the mind (15.9% are undecided, accept an alternative to both, or think the question is too unclear to answer*). There was also a more specific question on ‘Consciousness’ which allows us to dig a bit deeper. Among those who accept/lean towards non-physicalism, approximately 3/4 are dualists and 1/4 are panpsychists.” i need then to redact myself on his matter. https://conscienceandconsciousness.com/2021/11/01/materialism-remains-the-majority-view-but-only-just/ 1- no entities, but something maybe going on beyond the realm of the purely material, yes. 2- why the automatic default to physicalism though. If one is to explore only the physical world than one expect to get only physical results. But does that mean that the world is only made up of the physical?. I contend that science neglected a whole area of reality that put in the mix would not necessarily favour physicalism. This shift has already started in consciousness research where a physical explanation of it is still lacking. Hence the biasness towards physicalism that I am talking about in science. Should have said in swansont reply that data provided was not in my favour at least as it stand.for the mind

Point well taken appearance of is not evidence of I will do a review of literature, but may take some time as I have an activity next week that will keep me away from electronic gadgets. homogeneity as in only one worldview permeating all of science entire fields of study; should have said fields of study outside of of predominating worldview. Gave many examples in the numerous references that I provided in former posts

Looking for perfection where there is none to be found.

A good night's sleep is wonderful. 1 - I contend that well-established and still under investigation things are mostly of the same genus. Data is the main driver of this, but there is also the process itself and predominant mind-set of the moment that sets the tone, with the latter being influenced amongst other things by biasness, values and beliefs. On process, let me make myself very clear, the process does not need to be replaced by something else as this one is the best that we have and a different one would only have other intended or unintended consequences of its own on outcome. What I am saying is how can one think that the process does not have any impact on outcome? All processes, that they be financial or administrative make outputs tend towards similar outcomes. It is their nature and main reason for being created and used. They structure thinking and action in a certain way, so they constrain movement of thought and action. On the predominant mind-set, this is where it gets interesting as this has a powerful impact on homogenisation of outcome. For example, it is much harder for me to go against grain in this forum than to acquiesce to the prevailing worldview. We are social animals wanting to fit in. And this I say, has an impact on outcome. And no matter what measure is taken or tweak in the process being made, it will still be there. It is an inalienable part of humanity and there is no way around it not influencing the way we think and believe. We need to contend with process and predominant mind-set, not believe that they have gone away with no effect on outcome. 2- yes, see response 1- 3- Agree, but interpretation of data is where biasness may set in to influence outcome. 4- And it could also be biasness towards a certain field of science. Some scientists still believe that consciousness is not a valid field of study as it is not measurable. 5- I have read both sides of the story on NDE's. I contend that with a materialist mind-set, I would tend to think that the one's saying that it is all in our heads are correct and than those saying that it is out in the world, are not. And I contend that it would be the other way around if I was a non-materialist. Furthermore, as the predominant mind-set is materialism, then Susan Blackmore is more noted than Bruce Greyson. 6 and 7- Materialism is not a fundamental ingredient in the recipe of science; that it is a given in science. It is not. It is an interpretation of scientists through data that our world is so. Its is a worlview coming out of science. As it not being a main ingredient of science, it should stand aside as it taints everthing else that goes about in science and skews (biases) the exploration of reality in a certain direction. I also contend that some data is being ignored just because it might contradict this worldview. 8- I am talking about scientists working on significant projects that have contrary implications on prevailing theories and stay at the "fringe" of science, because of the very fact of being contrarian to theory. 9- I said that this was the case early, but no longer the case now. How about me showing up at a consciousness lab today and saying that I want to study mind through brain, would I get the same reception as me saying that I want to study mind from brain? 10- Agree that it is a fault of mine and has implications on my understanding of science. But, another point of view on science coming from a different perspective might shed light in a different way on science. Maybe, sometimes, I can see the tree while you can only see the leaves. And yes, I do not always see the leaves. Agree Yes, but while keeping in might that it might still be lurking in the background correction; .....while keeping in mind that it might still be lurking.....

You have good counter-arguments. I gave you an outsiders perspective and you gave a good insiders perspective. +1 I think that my post before this one was my weakest. apologies for this!

Your post has been very instructive. It may be I that needs to put my biasness in check over biasness in science. but a few more questions and point of views before doing so. Why this prevalent homogeneity of views in science? Does the process without intent turns square pegs into round ones in order to make them fit into round holes? Is it evidence that pushes results towards predictable outcomes or the process itself as well? why has entire fields of scientific investigation been relinquished to the fringes of science? Why are near death experiences all Susan Blackmore and not also Bruce Greyson? Have you ever heard of a case where a materialistic point of view has been criticized for being such? It happens all the time for a non-materialistic point of view! in my readings, I have encountered many very very good scientists that have remainder totally unknown, because their scientific results did not fit with mainstream science. why have some scientists been informed that their proposed line of scientific investigation was bad for their careers? It was like that for consciousness a while back ago. Why this incessant need to reassure readers of scientific articles that the results obtained are in line with currently accepted theory? This happens even more frequently in evolutionary biology, but in all other disciplines also. Hope that I am not upsetting anyone with my odd questions. i am a square peg not fitting in the round, and that is good and bad.

How does one check his biasness at the front door when one does not even know that he may be biased. Why even bother checking his biasness at the front door when one thinks that the peer review process will take care of it. Aren't members of the peer review group basically scientists sharing the same worldview. Total arrest is impossible. Peer review is necessary and irreplaceable I do not want to demolish the foundation, but to solidify and broaden it.

1- I have tried to bring some sort of evidence into play, but it has rightfully been received with suspicion. Not all bias is bad, but most of it is. If it stops a good idea from moving forward, then it is bad.The best ideas will not always withstand criticism. 2- Agree 3- I entirely agree that my ideas have been treated both respectfully and with more kindness than most. Actually, I was wondering why? No need for thicker skin then. 4- Good that you are open to the idea that consciousness and mind may extend farther than the brain. My attempts are rather lacking, because there is lack of evidence and there is lack of evidence, because it is difficult to get funding and publishing opportunities to present the evidence. Also, the field is in early adolescence and going through growth issues. And also, it is not an easy field to investigate. And, and, I may be very inapt at it. Furthermore, there is no Hadron collective collider effort in pursuit of “to the best of our understanding knowledge”. As for being off topic here in this thread, I am answering those that ask questions off topic while all the while trying to relate it back to biasness. And, I am not the only going off topic on threads. But admit that I have been off topic before. 5- My sampling approach is willingly biased, because there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence being presented for the other side of the coin. I am willingly counter balancing the pendulum in the hope that it finds balance. What would be needed in my approach for it to be more convincing and less lacking? At least there is a conversation whereas my post was before met with radio silence.

I am advocating for more rigor, not less, but on biasness as well as upholding the standards. Agree that science isn't immune to bias, but not all rejection is biased. Peer review and the rest of the process is good, but, I contend, insufficient to totally arrest the effects of biasness as well as of values and beliefs. While both upholding standards, I contend that a mind through brain proposal would be met with much more scepticism than a mind from brain one, no matter the set standards target. It would be treated differently in the 'minds" of the evaluators. Just look at the reception that I got on this forum platform. DrmDoc eloquently advocated for the latter, but I felt that notwithstanding the evidence and arguments that I provided, not very many were taking my position even half-seriously, because of biasness. You would conted, because of evidence and I would counter, because of evidence and biasness. Again, not feeling as the victim here as it is normal to be sceptical of things that do not square with our belief system. Its part of human nature and there is not fault to be handed down. It is what it is, not what it should be. We are all biased and must recognize this to be less biased. And as there no "Truths", there is no total "unbiasness".

I would have given a +2 but I can't.

"Methodological naturalism" is the method by which science is done. A mechanistic world view is derived from the interpretation of the data that is being produced. I contend that this interpretation of data does not necessarily and automatically conclude that the world is a mechanical device of grand proportion. And I contend that biasness is at least partially at play in this interpretation of facts, as a mechanistic worldview is being taken as an "état de fait". What I am then saying is that you can do methodological naturalistic science without espousing a mechanistic worldview. Purely individual and subjective experiences are already being studied by science. This is just being done differently than "normal' science and produces both data and reproductible results. I contend also that "spiritually enlightening experiences" might or might not all be coming from the head and that if it is not coming from the head, then science will have to "deal" with this. The jury is still very much out though on this one and only meticulous data collection and analysis will be able make the case for one or the other. Gravity is a force that does not need the supernatural for explanation. So, why not a mind force being an integral part of the universe having or not supernatural features? Also, I would have been biased if I had told you that this mind force must solely rely on the supernatural. I have a different worldview that most of you on this science platform, but as one says in French, "vive la différence".

Increasing checks and balances on biasness while maintaining rigour should bring about more diversity while maintaining quality. Agree that it is a difficult balancing act. Agree also that you have to scrutinize more, not less.

I forcefully object. When did I say to ignore the existing body of knowledge? What I am saying though is that biases, values and beliefs all have an effect on science and the scientific process, no matter what stop gap measures are in place. By recognizing this more forcefully, there would be even more open mindedness and objectivity in science. It is like a background noise humming along all the time. Its people doing it, not the process. The process tries to control this with limited success. Falsifiability is a good thing. Things go south because falsifiability is not the only factor at play in determining who goes through the gate or not; biasness, values and beliefs insidiously invite themselves in the process. Note: This is all going on mostly subconsciously, thereby making it hard to notice and put in check; hence the insidiousness. What about the interpretation of observational evidence? Is it not malleable to biasness? And are there not many interpretations of observational evidence, even in cosmology?

1- What do you need as kind of evidence as I seem to have provided at least one and it did not fit the bill? 2- Ho yes it can be done! bias avoidance can be measured or qualitatively derived. 3 to 6 - Very instructive; no sarcasm intended 7- I do find Dim's citation relevant and liked the "-me" And 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized. https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common

The text wreaks of condescending undertones, but I will pass on that one. First paragraph – I agree with most of what is being said except that prevailing well-tested theories and models are deemed to be truthful and used as such by the general and scientific communities until proven otherwise and that you would have to wake up very early in the morning to even dare to challenge well-tested theories. You doing so would be met with grave concern rather than trepidation as you seem to allude to. Also, how is this related to biasness? Second paragraph – Again, not many issues with the text. But three things: 1- can you explain the relationship of this with biasness? It seems to me, at least, to only be remotely linked to the topic; 2- In theory, this is all good and well, but does it really play out like this in the real world? 3- How do you get funding for data collection when your idea is not being taken seriously because of biasness? Third paragraph - So, are you saying that biasness is being washed out through the rigors of academia? Again, I am not sure of the link with biasness. All of this felt more like a sermon than a teaching. And, maybe, a bit off topic. Again, here is more of my half-assed assumptions: How do you respond when I compare mind through brain versus mind from brain? If you say categorically that one is true and the other false, then you are biased. If you say that one has much more evidence in support than the other, then you are less biased. I sure feels like it! What is the evidence that this is not happening? I am aware that measures are being taken to avoid biasness? But are those measures effective? Your turn to provide evidence. So the laws of thermodynamics are Truths? "The point is, scientist's as human beings are as prone to biases as anyone else" - yes "However science is different to the bible" - yes Where I differ from you is your assumption that biasness can be mostly washed out in the rise cycle. For one, biasness is there even before the science process kicks in by way of selecting who can get through the starting gate and who does not. Second, I have seen ideas got through the process more than once while having differing results at the end and I would venture that the predominating biased mindset might have something to do with this. And for sure, I am biased on this topic like anyone else.

MIgl's examples and your example are transformed into biased events when they become Truths and not truths. When no place is given to any line of thinking that runs counter to the prevailing Truth. When the mere mention of a word or a name becomes taboo. Biasness is not a thing, but a frame of mind. It is very difficult to pin down as, again, it's not a thing. Its not only in people, but also in establishments. Its not always there, but most of the time it is. And it creeps up on you! Favoring current best explanations is not biasness, but hidebound denial is and there is some of this going on in science.

1- Point well taken! I wanted to start with the opening question as an example of basic biasness, but never thought to bring the question along to another thread. 2- I also liked INow's quip about Galileo even if it was aimed at me. 1- Never implied that. 2- Showing evidence if bias is really hard to get at and I think that you know this. Historical examples (see Migl post), articles which lays out claims, and studies on the inherent biasness in all of us is all I got, which is more than most. 3- https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18326/1/may-bias-in-science.pdf No I am not. Either twisting it or reading too much into it. I am talking about "motivated reasoning" as indicated in the article that I provided. Has science ever discarded an idea without really looking into, just because it did not meet with the prevailng line of thinking? Correction: ".......without looking into it, just because...... There may be more mistakes.