Intelligent Design

Daniel Sarewitz: Bias is Like a Magnetic Field That Pulls Iron Filings Into Alignment

Spread the love

Kudos to Daniel Sarewitz for his must-readcomment on the problem of bias in scientific research where he discusses mounting evidence that bias in science is not random. If it were then multiple studies would serve to cancel it out. Instead false positive results persist and to make matters worse, science’s attempts at internal controls, such as conflicts of interest disclosure, are not keeping up with the problem. Sarewitz points out that industry teams, who seek actually to implement scientific findings, are consistently unable to confirm what were thought to be “landmark” findings. As John Ioannidis has put it, “claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”  Read more

6 Replies to “Daniel Sarewitz: Bias is Like a Magnetic Field That Pulls Iron Filings Into Alignment

  1. 1
    jstanley01 says:

    All involved benefit from positive results, and from the appearance of progress. Scientists are rewarded both intellectually and professionally, science administrators are empowered and the public desire for a better world is answered. The lack of incentives to report negative results, replicate experiments or recognize inconsistencies, ambiguities and uncertainties is widely appreciated — but the necessary cultural change is incredibly difficult to achieve.

    The big push after Sputnik to produce scientists and to publicly fund science was a big mistake. The vast majority these people and institutions serve no function that contributes any good whatsoever to the commonweal. And too often just the opposite, even as their main area of expertise resides in how to fool the public.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: “Very Unreal and Fantastic”: Electric Cables Created by Bacteria – November 10, 2012
    http://crev.info/2012/11/elect.....-bacteria/

  3. 3
    timothya says:

    jstanley01 posted this:

    The big push after Sputnik to produce scientists and to publicly fund science was a big mistake. The vast majority these people and institutions serve no function that contributes any good whatsoever to the commonweal. And too often just the opposite, even as their main area of expertise resides in how to fool the public.

    Evidently science is a bad thing. All scientists do is “fool the public”. Bad scientists, bad.

  4. 4
    Robert Byers says:

    WHAT IS THE ANATOMY OF BIAS?!
    Yes there is this bias in everything but does it interfere with the truth.
    So its about seeking the truth.
    So it must be jettisoned in this seeking.

    Can one jettison presumptions?
    If one believes dinos went extinct long ago or one does not then it affects ones listening to claims of dinos in South America today.

    Bias might just be presumption and then its all about whether its right or wrong.
    Others accuse you of bias and they are right but not right about whether its right or wrong.

    It all comes down error or not error after all .

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Interview with Suzan Mazur, the author of “The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry” (Corruption of peer-review by big science) – video
    http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/6515194

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    An Interview with David Noble – Peer Review as Censorship by SUZAN MAZUR – 2010
    Excerpt: SUZAN MAZUR: I’ve been focusing on abuse inside the peer review system in recent articles for CounterPunch. The system seems to have spiraled out of control – to the extent that at the low end we now find virtual death squads on Internet blogs out to destroy scientists who have novel theories. They pretend to be battling creationism but their real job is to censor the free flow of ideas on behalf of the science establishment. The science establishment rewards bloody deeds like these by putting the chief assassin on the cover of The Humanist magazine, for example.
    But you’ve written in “Regression on the Left” that the problem IS the peer review system itself. Why do you think so?
    David Noble: When you say THE problem is the peer review system – the peer review system in my view is doing what it was designed to do — censor. And filter. Peer review is a system of prior censorship, prior review – prior meaning prior to publication. So the idea of abusing the peer review system sort of adds insult to injury, because the peer review system itself is injurious.,,,
    http://www.counterpunch.org/20.....ensorship/

Leave a Reply