FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Research Questions
Research Questions
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
On the back of the Coronavirus vaccine thread. I noticed how infrequently posters underpin their views with illustrations of evidence.
I also picked up the term non-biased research towards the end of the thread. So I am wondering what research do you base your views on. What are the sources that inform your opinions. How do you check your own biases and assumptions when researching? How do you test your own theories about this virus and what actions are effective, efficient and ethically legitimate? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On the back of the Coronavirus vaccine thread. I noticed how infrequently posters underpin their views with illustrations of evidence.
I also picked up the term non-biased research towards the end of the thread. So I am wondering what research do you base your views on. What are the sources that inform your opinions. How do you check your own biases and assumptions when researching? How do you test your own theories about this virus and what actions are effective, efficient and ethically legitimate?"
I suppose give or take a few hundred (or a few thousand depending non how big the geographic in question is) death is death. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On the back of the Coronavirus vaccine thread. I noticed how infrequently posters underpin their views with illustrations of evidence.
I also picked up the term non-biased research towards the end of the thread. So I am wondering what research do you base your views on. What are the sources that inform your opinions. How do you check your own biases and assumptions when researching? How do you test your own theories about this virus and what actions are effective, efficient and ethically legitimate?
I suppose give or take a few hundred (or a few thousand depending non how big the geographic in question is) death is death. "
Wrong there .... depends what’s on your death certificate !!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I read news from various "mainstream" media. I also happen to read scientific papers.
I'm lucky enough to have a general good understanding of the underlying principles of science/math/statistics that is at foundation of those works. I do not have any specific or extended knowledge in microbiology, epidemiology, medicine etc. I do not assume I know better than people who specialize in those fields just because I didn't fully understood a paper.
I don't automatically believe anything I read on the Internet until I see some kind of proof of it. I'm especially suspicious of any theory that implies some form of world-conspiracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I read news from various "mainstream" media. I also happen to read scientific papers.
I'm lucky enough to have a general good understanding of the underlying principles of science/math/statistics that is at foundation of those works. I do not have any specific or extended knowledge in microbiology, epidemiology, medicine etc. I do not assume I know better than people who specialize in those fields just because I didn't fully understood a paper.
I don't automatically believe anything I read on the Internet until I see some kind of proof of it. I'm especially suspicious of any theory that implies some form of world-conspiracy."
Thanks. Sounds that you use multiple sources to get a sense of different perspectives and come from a position of knowing some of the limitations of your own knowledge.
These are not just questions for you but were prompted by your reply.
What do you give most weight to? What beliefs might affect how you view what you see and hear? What is proof of a theory for you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I read news from various "mainstream" media. I also happen to read scientific papers.
I'm lucky enough to have a general good understanding of the underlying principles of science/math/statistics that is at foundation of those works. I do not have any specific or extended knowledge in microbiology, epidemiology, medicine etc. I do not assume I know better than people who specialize in those fields just because I didn't fully understood a paper.
I don't automatically believe anything I read on the Internet until I see some kind of proof of it. I'm especially suspicious of any theory that implies some form of world-conspiracy.
Thanks. Sounds that you use multiple sources to get a sense of different perspectives and come from a position of knowing some of the limitations of your own knowledge.
These are not just questions for you but were prompted by your reply.
What do you give most weight to? What beliefs might affect how you view what you see and hear? What is proof of a theory for you?"
As anyone else I have a tendency to believe in things that confirm what I already know/think. Being aware of this can help a bit, but I have biases too.
What I can consider a proof depend on how much I understand of the subject.
If I'm trying to form an opinion on a subject on which I don't have specific knowledge I tend to trust what the majority of experts say.
If it's something I know about, I can be more critical. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
The problem with research is it has to be paid for, when that payment comes from either a political or commercial entity there is always likely to be a bias, most people have a bias too, especially those that claim they dont. It usual to find research these days that can be contradicted by another piece of research. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I read news from various "mainstream" media. I also happen to read scientific papers.
I'm lucky enough to have a general good understanding of the underlying principles of science/math/statistics that is at foundation of those works. I do not have any specific or extended knowledge in microbiology, epidemiology, medicine etc. I do not assume I know better than people who specialize in those fields just because I didn't fully understood a paper.
I don't automatically believe anything I read on the Internet until I see some kind of proof of it. I'm especially suspicious of any theory that implies some form of world-conspiracy.
Thanks. Sounds that you use multiple sources to get a sense of different perspectives and come from a position of knowing some of the limitations of your own knowledge.
These are not just questions for you but were prompted by your reply.
What do you give most weight to? What beliefs might affect how you view what you see and hear? What is proof of a theory for you?
As anyone else I have a tendency to believe in things that confirm what I already know/think. Being aware of this can help a bit, but I have biases too.
What I can consider a proof depend on how much I understand of the subject.
If I'm trying to form an opinion on a subject on which I don't have specific knowledge I tend to trust what the majority of experts say.
If it's something I know about, I can be more critical."
Thanks. It’s interesting what you have said and I imagine many informed lay people adopt a similar approach. I was wondering about confirmation bias though and how common it is for people to choose intentionally to look for disconfirming evidence of their pet theories, or what they have been told. So testing their hypotheses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The problem with research is it has to be paid for, when that payment comes from either a political or commercial entity there is always likely to be a bias, most people have a bias too, especially those that claim they dont. It usual to find research these days that can be contradicted by another piece of research."
It is so often the case that what is purported to be objective scientific research is biased by the funding and other unexamined biases.
How frequently do we see the biases and assumptions on which a piece of research is being done made explicit, so those assumptions and biases too can be questioned? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As a research scientist, I read peer reviewed work. This means it's reviewed by other experts in the field. Yes there are sometimes 2 schools of thought and we compete against each other but this isn't common, and the scientific community is pulling together in a way not seen before to combat this pandemic.
Yes research is funded, we can't do it out of our own pocket unfortunately. But in academia this is often from the government or from charities not necessarily industry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with research is it has to be paid for, when that payment comes from either a political or commercial entity there is always likely to be a bias, most people have a bias too, especially those that claim they dont. It usual to find research these days that can be contradicted by another piece of research.
It is so often the case that what is purported to be objective scientific research is biased by the funding and other unexamined biases.
How frequently do we see the biases and assumptions on which a piece of research is being done made explicit, so those assumptions and biases too can be questioned?"
If it's from a scientific paper, we have to declare where our funding is from and also if we have conflicting interests. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"The problem with research is it has to be paid for, when that payment comes from either a political or commercial entity there is always likely to be a bias, most people have a bias too, especially those that claim they dont. It usual to find research these days that can be contradicted by another piece of research.
It is so often the case that what is purported to be objective scientific research is biased by the funding and other unexamined biases.
How frequently do we see the biases and assumptions on which a piece of research is being done made explicit, so those assumptions and biases too can be questioned?
If it's from a scientific paper, we have to declare where our funding is from and also if we have conflicting interests. "
While you have to declare your funding source the media never do so research from biased researchers are presented as "independent " when too often they aren't.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with research is it has to be paid for, when that payment comes from either a political or commercial entity there is always likely to be a bias, most people have a bias too, especially those that claim they dont. It usual to find research these days that can be contradicted by another piece of research.
It is so often the case that what is purported to be objective scientific research is biased by the funding and other unexamined biases.
How frequently do we see the biases and assumptions on which a piece of research is being done made explicit, so those assumptions and biases too can be questioned?
If it's from a scientific paper, we have to declare where our funding is from and also if we have conflicting interests.
While you have to declare your funding source the media never do so research from biased researchers are presented as "independent " when too often they aren't.
"
Totally agree, the media misinterprets/misunderstand or sometimes mislead the public on scientific papers it's frustrating, and is understandable why people don't listen to the experts. Often looking at their original source confirms this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As a research scientist, I read peer reviewed work. This means it's reviewed by other experts in the field. Yes there are sometimes 2 schools of thought and we compete against each other but this isn't common, and the scientific community is pulling together in a way not seen before to combat this pandemic.
Yes research is funded, we can't do it out of our own pocket unfortunately. But in academia this is often from the government or from charities not necessarily industry. "
I'd be interested in hearing how you think ordinary people might pick through the data avalanche and make some sense of it, when we're not necessarily sufficiently scientifically or particularly statistically literate. I have my methods, but they're pretty idiosyncratic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As a research scientist, I read peer reviewed work. This means it's reviewed by other experts in the field. Yes there are sometimes 2 schools of thought and we compete against each other but this isn't common, and the scientific community is pulling together in a way not seen before to combat this pandemic.
Yes research is funded, we can't do it out of our own pocket unfortunately. But in academia this is often from the government or from charities not necessarily industry.
I'd be interested in hearing how you think ordinary people might pick through the data avalanche and make some sense of it, when we're not necessarily sufficiently scientifically or particularly statistically literate. I have my methods, but they're pretty idiosyncratic."
To non science people, always see if they are quoting a scientific journal, that's usually a good indicator the journalist has done some research. Then look for that papers impact factor you can Google it. The higher the better looking at 5 or more for a decent paper.
Then depending if you're feeling brave read the abstract. This is a summary of the paper. It will give a brief description of the why, how and results. This isn't foolproof but it's better than listening to the conspiracy lot. I've literally been spending the last few weeks, calming friends and family from crap they've heard from so and so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with research is it has to be paid for, when that payment comes from either a political or commercial entity there is always likely to be a bias, most people have a bias too, especially those that claim they dont. It usual to find research these days that can be contradicted by another piece of research."
The outcome/results are known before the research has begun. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with research is it has to be paid for, when that payment comes from either a political or commercial entity there is always likely to be a bias, most people have a bias too, especially those that claim they dont. It usual to find research these days that can be contradicted by another piece of research.
The outcome/results are known before the research has begun. "
This is untrue, yes scientists need to have preliminary data before someone will fund them so we give our best guess what the outcomes will be. They're not going to give money based on an idea without evidence.
Additionally, there are placebos and double blind studies, and sending data away to be analysed. Scientists aren't out to get people, most go into it to help the world  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with research is it has to be paid for, when that payment comes from either a political or commercial entity there is always likely to be a bias, most people have a bias too, especially those that claim they dont. It usual to find research these days that can be contradicted by another piece of research.
The outcome/results are known before the research has begun.
This is untrue, yes scientists need to have preliminary data before someone will fund them so we give our best guess what the outcomes will be. They're not going to give money based on an idea without evidence.
Additionally, there are placebos and double blind studies, and sending data away to be analysed. Scientists aren't out to get people, most go into it to help the world "
My understanding is that the scientific method is designed to try to root out bias. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The problem with research is it has to be paid for, when that payment comes from either a political or commercial entity there is always likely to be a bias, most people have a bias too, especially those that claim they dont. It usual to find research these days that can be contradicted by another piece of research.
It is so often the case that what is purported to be objective scientific research is biased by the funding and other unexamined biases.
How frequently do we see the biases and assumptions on which a piece of research is being done made explicit, so those assumptions and biases too can be questioned?
If it's from a scientific paper, we have to declare where our funding is from and also if we have conflicting interests.
While you have to declare your funding source the media never do so research from biased researchers are presented as "independent " when too often they aren't.
Totally agree, the media misinterprets/misunderstand or sometimes mislead the public on scientific papers it's frustrating, and is understandable why people don't listen to the experts. Often looking at their original source confirms this "
Unfortunately so much of what people base their decisions on is the reported research rather than going to the source. I wonder if the source information is accessible enough for the general population as it is mainly written for the scientific community? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Dr John Campbell on YouTube
He colates all the data from across the world and does a quick, easy to understand roundup
Highly, highly recommended "
On Covid in particular, also look for Vincent Racaniello. Virology and other podcasts. Quite full on but I think I've picked up a bit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with research is it has to be paid for, when that payment comes from either a political or commercial entity there is always likely to be a bias, most people have a bias too, especially those that claim they dont. It usual to find research these days that can be contradicted by another piece of research.
It is so often the case that what is purported to be objective scientific research is biased by the funding and other unexamined biases.
How frequently do we see the biases and assumptions on which a piece of research is being done made explicit, so those assumptions and biases too can be questioned?
If it's from a scientific paper, we have to declare where our funding is from and also if we have conflicting interests.
While you have to declare your funding source the media never do so research from biased researchers are presented as "independent " when too often they aren't.
Totally agree, the media misinterprets/misunderstand or sometimes mislead the public on scientific papers it's frustrating, and is understandable why people don't listen to the experts. Often looking at their original source confirms this
Unfortunately so much of what people base their decisions on is the reported research rather than going to the source. I wonder if the source information is accessible enough for the general population as it is mainly written for the scientific community?"
Use Google scholar, you can search what you want there. You will get access to the article you want abstract for free always. Some journals are open access however some you have to pay unfortunately. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The problem with research is it has to be paid for, when that payment comes from either a political or commercial entity there is always likely to be a bias, most people have a bias too, especially those that claim they dont. It usual to find research these days that can be contradicted by another piece of research.
It is so often the case that what is purported to be objective scientific research is biased by the funding and other unexamined biases.
How frequently do we see the biases and assumptions on which a piece of research is being done made explicit, so those assumptions and biases too can be questioned?
If it's from a scientific paper, we have to declare where our funding is from and also if we have conflicting interests.
While you have to declare your funding source the media never do so research from biased researchers are presented as "independent " when too often they aren't.
Totally agree, the media misinterprets/misunderstand or sometimes mislead the public on scientific papers it's frustrating, and is understandable why people don't listen to the experts. Often looking at their original source confirms this
Unfortunately so much of what people base their decisions on is the reported research rather than going to the source. I wonder if the source information is accessible enough for the general population as it is mainly written for the scientific community?
Use Google scholar, you can search what you want there. You will get access to the article you want abstract for free always. Some journals are open access however some you have to pay unfortunately."
Thanks that is really helpful |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The problem with research is it has to be paid for, when that payment comes from either a political or commercial entity there is always likely to be a bias, most people have a bias too, especially those that claim they dont. It usual to find research these days that can be contradicted by another piece of research.
It is so often the case that what is purported to be objective scientific research is biased by the funding and other unexamined biases.
How frequently do we see the biases and assumptions on which a piece of research is being done made explicit, so those assumptions and biases too can be questioned?
If it's from a scientific paper, we have to declare where our funding is from and also if we have conflicting interests.
While you have to declare your funding source the media never do so research from biased researchers are presented as "independent " when too often they aren't.
Totally agree, the media misinterprets/misunderstand or sometimes mislead the public on scientific papers it's frustrating, and is understandable why people don't listen to the experts. Often looking at their original source confirms this
Unfortunately so much of what people base their decisions on is the reported research rather than going to the source. I wonder if the source information is accessible enough for the general population as it is mainly written for the scientific community?
Use Google scholar, you can search what you want there. You will get access to the article you want abstract for free always. Some journals are open access however some you have to pay unfortunately."
I have just also had Pub Med recommended too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm biased and know it but remain ignorant of the full extent, though aim to temper it.
I use some mainstream media and use published research, as it's my domain.
It's easy to get too engrossed due to interest and the fast exciting pace of developments. That is a potential warning though, where we are not the centre of research progress.
I like to remind myself of my biases as it may help support my having a little balance but I'm very fallible |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm biased and know it but remain ignorant of the full extent, though aim to temper it.
I use some mainstream media and use published research, as it's my domain.
It's easy to get too engrossed due to interest and the fast exciting pace of developments. That is a potential warning though, where we are not the centre of research progress.
I like to remind myself of my biases as it may help support my having a little balance but I'm very fallible "
I'm quite engrossed, more than my forum activity indicates, which comes with benefits and downsides. But it's in my nature. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
I read lots of scientific journals through OpenAthens and news mostly WSJ, Al Jazeera, FT, read some mainstream UK media but take it with a pinch of salt. I also talk to a lot of people daily in the global business and scientific communities. Even so, lots of diverse theories and differences of opinion still, no one has the answers yet. One area I’ve been involved in for the last 10-15 is Action research, or practitioner based research , using graduate KTP programmes, it follows a different method to traditional scientific research and it is sometimes less respected by academia but it’s proving to deliver fast and valid results |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
"I'm biased and know it but remain ignorant of the full extent, though aim to temper it.
I use some mainstream media and use published research, as it's my domain.
It's easy to get too engrossed due to interest and the fast exciting pace of developments. That is a potential warning though, where we are not the centre of research progress.
I like to remind myself of my biases as it may help support my having a little balance but I'm very fallible "
Knowing your own bias is also vital in research / analysis. No one can claim to be unbiased , the best we can be is self aware |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm biased and know it but remain ignorant of the full extent, though aim to temper it.
I use some mainstream media and use published research, as it's my domain.
It's easy to get too engrossed due to interest and the fast exciting pace of developments. That is a potential warning though, where we are not the centre of research progress.
I like to remind myself of my biases as it may help support my having a little balance but I'm very fallible
Knowing your own bias is also vital in research / analysis. No one can claim to be unbiased , the best we can be is self aware "
Absolutely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As your question was on "views" and whether you check them.
I'm of the mindset that you can hold whatever view you like, if you try and spread that viewpoint then absolutely you should check it.
It's also worthwhile to use a variety of sources, as someone said there is conscious and un-conscious bias in most things....
For News:
Channel4, AJ, France24
Highly recommend watching a "news" organisation like RT to the "other [one sided] side".
2p worth, BBC isn't particularly bias as an organisation, its just become sloppy over the past 5 years.
Avoid, YouTube and scientific papers....(yes I grouped them together).. as there is often lots in the research (or just data studies) that set out to confirm researcher (or funder) bias. Take with a wee pinch.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I read lots of scientific journals through OpenAthens and news mostly WSJ, Al Jazeera, FT, read some mainstream UK media but take it with a pinch of salt. I also talk to a lot of people daily in the global business and scientific communities. Even so, lots of diverse theories and differences of opinion still, no one has the answers yet. One area I’ve been involved in for the last 10-15 is Action research, or practitioner based research , using graduate KTP programmes, it follows a different method to traditional scientific research and it is sometimes less respected by academia but it’s proving to deliver fast and valid results "
Yes I use action research/inquiry a lot for my work with an emphasis on triangulating first, second and third person research. As Sophie said above I’m acutely aware of my biases and do endeavour to counter them by deliberately looking for disconfirming evidence and encouraging devils advocate perspectives. However that is easier to do in fields I have knowledge of. The challenge for me in virology has been coming from a zero base. I knocked biology on the head when I was 14  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I'm biased and know it but remain ignorant of the full extent, though aim to temper it.
I use some mainstream media and use published research, as it's my domain.
It's easy to get too engrossed due to interest and the fast exciting pace of developments. That is a potential warning though, where we are not the centre of research progress.
I like to remind myself of my biases as it may help support my having a little balance but I'm very fallible
Knowing your own bias is also vital in research / analysis. No one can claim to be unbiased , the best we can be is self aware "
It was claimed that one poster had done unbiased research on the safety of vaccines for years in the Coronavirus Vaccination thread near the end. It provoked this thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"As your question was on "views" and whether you check them.
I'm of the mindset that you can hold whatever view you like, if you try and spread that viewpoint then absolutely you should check it.
It's also worthwhile to use a variety of sources, as someone said there is conscious and un-conscious bias in most things....
For News:
Channel4, AJ, France24
Highly recommend watching a "news" organisation like RT to the "other [one sided] side".
2p worth, BBC isn't particularly bias as an organisation, its just become sloppy over the past 5 years.
Avoid, YouTube and scientific papers....(yes I grouped them together).. as there is often lots in the research (or just data studies) that set out to confirm researcher (or funder) bias. Take with a wee pinch...."
By check, do you mean look for disconfirming evidence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's sort of an aside in a way, and it might not be appreciated, but my study of various critical theories in the humanities and social sciences taught me a lot about bias and how much I have to be wary of it. Little assumptions we make, false foundations we stand on. Like a pebble in a pond they have rippling effects on the questions we ask, the way data is collected and interpreted, the way it's all combined into "answers". It's incredibly humbling and uncomfortable, but it also can't be unseen. I suppose a good understanding of the scientific method also imparts similar discomfort and checking to reduce (not eliminate - impossible) bias. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's sort of an aside in a way, and it might not be appreciated, but my study of various critical theories in the humanities and social sciences taught me a lot about bias and how much I have to be wary of it. Little assumptions we make, false foundations we stand on. Like a pebble in a pond they have rippling effects on the questions we ask, the way data is collected and interpreted, the way it's all combined into "answers". It's incredibly humbling and uncomfortable, but it also can't be unseen. I suppose a good understanding of the scientific method also imparts similar discomfort and checking to reduce (not eliminate - impossible) bias."
I think you make a good point as it is often seen that positivistic approaches to research are the only way to generate knowledge vigorously. Since traditional scientific method approaches are frequently seen as only applicable to observable phenomena. However we can apply similar rigour to the subjective territories of experience. And for me that is where so many fallacies appear. Even in the objective territory of experience we can see how the subjectivity of the scientists involved affects the questions they ask and the evidence they look for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's sort of an aside in a way, and it might not be appreciated, but my study of various critical theories in the humanities and social sciences taught me a lot about bias and how much I have to be wary of it. Little assumptions we make, false foundations we stand on. Like a pebble in a pond they have rippling effects on the questions we ask, the way data is collected and interpreted, the way it's all combined into "answers". It's incredibly humbling and uncomfortable, but it also can't be unseen. I suppose a good understanding of the scientific method also imparts similar discomfort and checking to reduce (not eliminate - impossible) bias.
I think you make a good point as it is often seen that positivistic approaches to research are the only way to generate knowledge vigorously. Since traditional scientific method approaches are frequently seen as only applicable to observable phenomena. However we can apply similar rigour to the subjective territories of experience. And for me that is where so many fallacies appear. Even in the objective territory of experience we can see how the subjectivity of the scientists involved affects the questions they ask and the evidence they look for."
Absolutely. The scientific method and its various forms of interrogation of data should reduce this, but we also need to look further to people willing to question the data (plus generate questions to ask, and consider what to fund) outside the traditional paradigms. In the humanities this has come with an increased emphasis on underrepresented groups in academia. I can see that this might also apply in the sciences, but maybe in a less immediate and obvious way, than, say, the sudden realisation that women were worth studying in history (yeah really). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's sort of an aside in a way, and it might not be appreciated, but my study of various critical theories in the humanities and social sciences taught me a lot about bias and how much I have to be wary of it. Little assumptions we make, false foundations we stand on. Like a pebble in a pond they have rippling effects on the questions we ask, the way data is collected and interpreted, the way it's all combined into "answers". It's incredibly humbling and uncomfortable, but it also can't be unseen. I suppose a good understanding of the scientific method also imparts similar discomfort and checking to reduce (not eliminate - impossible) bias.
I think you make a good point as it is often seen that positivistic approaches to research are the only way to generate knowledge vigorously. Since traditional scientific method approaches are frequently seen as only applicable to observable phenomena. However we can apply similar rigour to the subjective territories of experience. And for me that is where so many fallacies appear. Even in the objective territory of experience we can see how the subjectivity of the scientists involved affects the questions they ask and the evidence they look for.
Absolutely. The scientific method and its various forms of interrogation of data should reduce this, but we also need to look further to people willing to question the data (plus generate questions to ask, and consider what to fund) outside the traditional paradigms. In the humanities this has come with an increased emphasis on underrepresented groups in academia. I can see that this might also apply in the sciences, but maybe in a less immediate and obvious way, than, say, the sudden realisation that women were worth studying in history (yeah really)."
That is why I have a big bias towards Integral Philosophy and it’s advocacy of research mindedness in the subjective, objective, inter-subjective and inter-objective territories of experience. It encourages us to see the interconnected was of everything and deliberately focuses on areas that are eclipsed in conventional research and conventional ways of thinking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's sort of an aside in a way, and it might not be appreciated, but my study of various critical theories in the humanities and social sciences taught me a lot about bias and how much I have to be wary of it. Little assumptions we make, false foundations we stand on. Like a pebble in a pond they have rippling effects on the questions we ask, the way data is collected and interpreted, the way it's all combined into "answers". It's incredibly humbling and uncomfortable, but it also can't be unseen. I suppose a good understanding of the scientific method also imparts similar discomfort and checking to reduce (not eliminate - impossible) bias.
I think you make a good point as it is often seen that positivistic approaches to research are the only way to generate knowledge vigorously. Since traditional scientific method approaches are frequently seen as only applicable to observable phenomena. However we can apply similar rigour to the subjective territories of experience. And for me that is where so many fallacies appear. Even in the objective territory of experience we can see how the subjectivity of the scientists involved affects the questions they ask and the evidence they look for.
Absolutely. The scientific method and its various forms of interrogation of data should reduce this, but we also need to look further to people willing to question the data (plus generate questions to ask, and consider what to fund) outside the traditional paradigms. In the humanities this has come with an increased emphasis on underrepresented groups in academia. I can see that this might also apply in the sciences, but maybe in a less immediate and obvious way, than, say, the sudden realisation that women were worth studying in history (yeah really).
That is why I have a big bias towards Integral Philosophy and it’s advocacy of research mindedness in the subjective, objective, inter-subjective and inter-objective territories of experience. It encourages us to see the interconnected was of everything and deliberately focuses on areas that are eclipsed in conventional research and conventional ways of thinking."
In the simplest of terms, my attitude is kind of "how might we have screwed this up?" 
This requires both the careful use of statistics but also a willingness to deconstruct what we believe we understand in a more sociological fashion. It can be incredible at times reading old academic research. The assumptions they just run with are amazing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I have a background in sciences, mathematics and logic, but strangely I rarely find myself applying rigorous analysis to matters of politics or society. However I suppose that whether using formal methods or not, I do have an ingrained attitude to dig beneath the surface and seek understanding of issues rather than just accepting simplistic arguments that might appeal to my un-conscious (and sometimes not so un-conscious) biases. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
"
Avoid, YouTube and scientific papers....(yes I grouped them together).. as there is often lots in the research (or just data studies) that set out to confirm researcher (or funder) bias. Take with a wee pinch...."
This is certainly an interesting thread.
Interesting you say avoid scientific papers, which is the main output and comms of the scientific method we’ve used for hundred of years to advance; hypothesis, review previous work , experiment/test, write results, peer review publish. This process and research building on previous findings is central to science.
Do you reject the validity of scientific research in general or just the general public and media’s ability to interpret and use it ?
The reason I ask is that it’s interesting that on this forum you are not allowed to post links to peer reviewed internally accepted research but are allowed to post conspiracy theories from YouTube , and MSM fake news where they have mis interpreted the same papers.
Maybe we need protecting from our ability to think !
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
"Haha I agree. Having a framework to help me to keep asking ‘what am I missing?’ is helping me.."
It’s a good approach, looking for assumptions, gaps and bias strengthens the outputs. I have a bias towards privacy , I believe in freedom of information and am against lots of privacy laws. It’s quite a philosophical view I’ve had since working in anti-trafficking years ago. When I did research for IT security it obviously biased my work immensely and was debated in the peer review process. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Haha I agree. Having a framework to help me to keep asking ‘what am I missing?’ is helping me..
It’s a good approach, looking for assumptions, gaps and bias strengthens the outputs. I have a bias towards privacy , I believe in freedom of information and am against lots of privacy laws. It’s quite a philosophical view I’ve had since working in anti-trafficking years ago. When I did research for IT security it obviously biased my work immensely and was debated in the peer review process."
I'm aware of my biases I think. Although I'm not always convinced I'm wrong  I'm a work in progress, and there are certainly some subjects where it's just better for me to walk away.
But there are certainly systems for the reduction of bias and cross checking by others with different biases. At least in some spheres. On here we just tend to virtually yell at each other |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
Known bias in one thing.... Have you ever taken an unconsc****s bias test ? There is a good little book called post truth all about the rose in populism but it has some good discussion of he different biases too, there’s more than most people imagine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ucktopMan
over a year ago
London/abroad |
As there are a few people on this thread who know what they are talking about - how much do you trust the peer-review process and majority views?
I am conflicted about it, on one hand I agree that over time it will correct bias and point research in the direction of actual facts. But only 'over time', and in the meantime, there is a risk of groupthink taking over and exacerbating bias with a tendency for the group to collectively hunt down and suppress dissenting voices.
As a gay man who grew up in an environment where the majority certainly didn't encourage non-conformist attitudes, I have trouble accepting that the majority always knows best, all the time.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Known bias in one thing.... Have you ever taken an unconsc****s bias test ? There is a good little book called post truth all about the rose in populism but it has some good discussion of he different biases too, there’s more than most people imagine "
I have in work was very interesting |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In case someone doesn't understand peer review in scientific articles. When you submit a paper, it goes through an editor who then decides if your paper is potentially any good. If they think it's ok they then pass it on the reviewers to essentially say if your work is good enough to be published. In this part they can say it's not good enough to be published or they can ask to see raw data or ask you to do more experiments etc. Only when the reviewers and editors are happy will they publish your work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
"As there are a few people on this thread who know what they are talking about - how much do you trust the peer-review process and majority views?
"
I think there is a difference in the type of Journal , the ones starting with the letter I for example probably have a better process.
I also think there is pressure to submit more “poster” style articles, presentations and conferences to fill journals and they engage the private sector more and I worry that some of these are purely self promotional. I think sine of the work coming out of non Russel group is questionable these days too, a snr. lecturer there has to bring in money via consulting or publish , often it’s easier for them to publish
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As there are a few people on this thread who know what they are talking about - how much do you trust the peer-review process and majority views?
I think there is a difference in the type of Journal , the ones starting with the letter I for example probably have a better process.
I also think there is pressure to submit more “poster” style articles, presentations and conferences to fill journals and they engage the private sector more and I worry that some of these are purely self promotional. I think sine of the work coming out of non Russel group is questionable these days too, a snr. lecturer there has to bring in money via consulting or publish , often it’s easier for them to publish
"
Or teach an absolute insane amount, whilst keeping your research going at the same time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Known bias in one thing.... Have you ever taken an unconsc****s bias test ? There is a good little book called post truth all about the rose in populism but it has some good discussion of he different biases too, there’s more than most people imagine "
I haven't, but I'm aware they must exist. They're known unknowns, I suppose. Where it matters I try to find ways to cross check. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As there are a few people on this thread who know what they are talking about - how much do you trust the peer-review process and majority views?
I am conflicted about it, on one hand I agree that over time it will correct bias and point research in the direction of actual facts. But only 'over time', and in the meantime, there is a risk of groupthink taking over and exacerbating bias with a tendency for the group to collectively hunt down and suppress dissenting voices.
As a gay man who grew up in an environment where the majority certainly didn't encourage non-conformist attitudes, I have trouble accepting that the majority always knows best, all the time.
"
I suspect science and societal behaviour are different concerns here, but I definitely see where you're coming from and would guess it might be a factor. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Known bias in one thing.... Have you ever taken an unconsc****s bias test ? There is a good little book called post truth all about the rose in populism but it has some good discussion of he different biases too, there’s more than most people imagine "
Un conscious bias is a really big one that’s why the approach I use seeks alternative perspectives to challenge my assumptions and thinking . I am particularly keen on endeavouring to do that in the moment of action so I’m jousting with my awareness continually. I spend far too much time asleep though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ok.take on board this but same thought but for Vaping
Everyone said to begin with all good now theres alsort of chest issues starting to be related to vaping....
So how long does it take b4 we no what is safe and whats. Not!!!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok.take on board this but same thought but for Vaping
Everyone said to begin with all good now theres alsort of chest issues starting to be related to vaping....
So how long does it take b4 we no what is safe and whats. Not!!!!! "
My understanding is that the initial thoughts were not enough known, then "better than smoking (but everything is)" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
"Ok.take on board this but same thought but for Vaping
Everyone said to begin with all good now theres alsort of chest issues starting to be related to vaping....
So how long does it take b4 we no what is safe and whats. Not!!!!!
My understanding is that the initial thoughts were not enough known, then "better than smoking (but everything is)""
Playing catch up on consumer products like this and smart drugs and alternative medicine has been really challenging. The side effects of smoking took decades to be found, new products come out daily now and governments and regulators struggle.
So it could be decades before we know about the effects of vaping. Common sense and intuition should tell you to try and breath clean air whenever possible that doesn’t contain toxins / chemicals |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Political expediency will always trump scientific advice ie If a Government in power ( of whatever type) feels its grip on power is threatened it will ignore science. This lockdown will end not when the science says it should end but when the politicians feel enough heat from voters and from big business lobbyists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
