Well this paper certainly shut me up

[Ersby]

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html

So now I'm stymied. This paper tells me that a prior belief system invariably influences your ability to sort the good science from the bad. And that evidence against doesn't so much weaken your views as strengthen them.

Since I've spent a lot of time reading scientific papers regarding psi and finding mistakes in them, I'm a little disturbed to discover that my brilliant sceptical mind is acting no differently from the soft-headed woo-woo mind.

Don't get me wrong, I think this paper is brilliant, and that's why I'm posting a link (do a search on "Bias Interpretation Use Research Results" on google, and you'll find youself pointed to the pdf version). And it's essential reading for everyone here. That our existing world-view should affect our future world-view is the very antithesis of skepticism, I feel.

Any other comments?

[CFLarsen]

Evidence, baby. Never fails you.

[Zep]

See the first line of my tag?

[Traveller]

Originally posted by Ersby


That our existing world-view should affect our future world-view is the very antithesis of skepticism, I feel.



No surely not, if it didn't how could you learn from experience?

But I agree, it's a most interesting paper which in my view only encourages us to view our own world views with skepticism - and of course to publish them here so that others, who perhaps don't share our biases, can point them out.

Anyway, take heart from the paper's conclusion that "biases are often subtle and small in magnitude" and that "available evidence constrains our interpretations - even when intentions are fraudulent - and the stronger and more comprehensive the evidence, the less wiggle room available for bias"

Unless you're a woo, of course.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Ersby
This paper tells me that a prior belief system invariably influences your ability to sort the good science from the bad. And that evidence against doesn't so much weaken your views as strengthen them.

Since I've spent a lot of time reading scientific papers regarding psi and finding mistakes in them, I'm a little disturbed to discover that my brilliant sceptical mind is acting no differently from the soft-headed woo-woo mind.

Don't get me wrong, I think this paper is brilliant, and that's why I'm posting a link (do a search on "Bias Interpretation Use Research Results" on google, and you'll find youself pointed to the pdf version). And it's essential reading for everyone here. That our existing world-view should affect our future world-view is the very antithesis of skepticism, I feel.

Any other comments? Well, I suppose it's part of human nature. We always tend to look for patterns we've seen before, and try to fit new evidence to our preconceptions. If you look at the history of science, virtually all really ground-breaking ideas have run into a certain amount of resistence from proponents of older, more established theories.

It's always difficult to accept that you have been wrong about something. The thing to do is to try to keep an open mind.

[steenkh]

I was once a staunch believer in the steady-state universe. Evidence has eventually persuaded me to believe that the big bang theory is the real truth.

Skeptic thinking seems to have been natural to me ever since I was a child, yet at one point when I was a teenager, a very persuasive book more or less convinced me that at least telepathy was true. Over time, other evidence has convinced me back to a 'pure' skeptic viewpoint.

I have also believed in repressed memories, but I no longer do.

It seems to me that I can be convinced, given evidence, and that I keep an open mind (that expression again!) even regarding beliefs that I once held dear. I am not inclined to think that I am particularly unique in this respect, so I think that a lot of others behave just like me.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mojo
If you look at the history of science, virtually all really ground-breaking ideas have run into a certain amount of resistence from proponents of older, more established theories. You speak as though this were a bad thing, and indeed, so do woos. So let's clear this up. THIS IS WHAT'S MEANT TO HAPPEN. All new ideas should be given a good kicking. We keep the ones that don't fall to pieces. If everyone liked a new idea, someone would have to play Devil's Advocate... but fortunately, such a case has never arisen.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Ersby


Don't get me wrong, I think this paper is brilliant, and that's why I'm posting a link (do a search on "Bias Interpretation Use Research Results" on google, and you'll find youself pointed to the pdf version). And it's essential reading for everyone here. That our existing world-view should affect our future world-view is the very antithesis of skepticism, I feel.

Any other comments?

Yeah -- check out the conclusions (again).


In this essay, I have cited a wealth of evidence that biased research interpretation is a common phenomenon, and an overdetermined one, with a variety of intentional, motivational, and purely cognitive determinants. But there is a danger of excessive cynicism here. First, the evidence suggests that the biases are often subtle and small in magnitude; few research consumers see whatever they want in the data. The available evidence constrains our interpretations - even when intentions are fraudulent - and the stronger and more comprehensive the evidence, the less wiggle room available for bias. Second, far from condemning the research enterprise, the evidence cited here provides grounds for celebrating it; systematic empirical research methods have played a powerful role in identifying biased research interpretation and uncovering its sources.

Finally, not all biases are indefensible. There are ample normative grounds for accepting differing opinions about imperfect and limited research on complex, multifaceted issues. There is nothing inherently wrong with differing standards of proof, and nothing shameful about taking an advocacy role - provided that we are self-conscious about our standards and our stance, and make them explicit. Fostering hypothesis competition and a heterogeneity of views and methods can simultaneously serve the search for the truth and the search for the good. But there is a pressing need to better articulate the boundary between adversarialism and what might be called "heterogeneous inquisitorialism"-a partnership of rigorous methodological standards, a willingness to tolerate uncertainty, and the encouragement of a diversity of hypotheses and perspectives.


As Larsen put it, "Evidence, baby."

[jmercer]

Agreed, CF and dr k. Evidence rules.

I have to say that I do find the last line in the conclusion is a bit disturbing, when you think of it in context of how we often conduct ourselves in the forums.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jmercer

I have to say that I do find the last line in the conclusion is a bit disturbing, when you think of it in context of how we often conduct ourselves in the forums.

I'm not entirely sure. Re-quoting said last line:
But there is a pressing need to better articulate the boundary between adversarialism and what might be called "heterogeneous inquisitorialism"-a partnership of rigorous methodological standards, a willingness to tolerate uncertainty, and the encouragement of a diversity of hypotheses and perspectives.


I'd be delighted if a number of the practitioners of the paranormal would join me in "a partnership of rigorous methodological standards." That's really what the Randi Challenge is -- a rigorous methodological standard.

I think this forum is very supportive of any hypotheses and perspectives that can conduct themselves in accordance with "rigorous methodological standards." See, for example, the analysis of Beth Clarkson's suggested protocol for establishing whether or not she was a telekinetic. I believe Ms. Clarkson is a professional scientist -- and though her belief may be "out there," her science and method are first-rate.

And then at the other extreme are a number of Those Who Shall Not Be Named, whose idea of methodological rigor is "someone whom I can't remember told me she read once that millions of people believe in." I don't find any pressing need to "encourage" a diversity of such perspectives.

[jmercer]

Mm... well put. I am concerned, however, that we sometimes drift (or are pushed, more often than not!) over the line into adversarialism.

It bothers me because I think it degrades our crediblity when that happens...

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jmercer
Mm... well put. I am concerned, however, that we sometimes drift (or are pushed, more often than not!) over the line into adversarialism.

It bothers me because I think it degrades our crediblity when that happens...

As it happens, I agree. I think a number of people on this board (no names, no pack-drill) are reflexically skeptical to the point of being unwilling to critically examine new ideas to see if they might not be as nonsensical as their initial presentation appears. On the other hand, I think that legitimate open-minded is often used against the observer as a weapon --- "yes, I know that you've examined fifteen thousand other mediums, but this one is different!"