Matt Ridley, in his "Scientific Heresy" article, postulated that people have a tendency to gravitate toward information and opinions that conform with and confirm their own stance or "bias".
This, he concludes, probably explains the willingness for scientists and the general population to so readily buy into the proposition that global warming is a dire threat to the planet's viability.

Matt Ridley, like the rest of us, doesn't appear immune from gravitation toward information and opinions that confirm his bias.
We all seem to do it.

Your views?

No-one is immune to confirmation bias, which is very evident by the willingness of denialists to jump on anything that puts doubt on the theory, regardless of what the source is.

The peer-review process should act as a mitigator of confirmation bias. Certainly, if there were so many scientists who disagree with the AGW theory, as many denialists claim, the peer-review process would definitely weed out any confirmation bias. However, it seems the scientific literature continuously points in the same direction.

Dear Poirot,

I tend to agree that most people are guilty of some
measure of bias. We all have a tendency, often
unconscious, to interpret things according to our
own values. Therefore the same has to be inevitably
true of scientists, whose outlooks are also
influenced by their background, training, and
prior experiences.

This problem of bias occurs in
all sciences, but it becomes particularly acute in
the social sciences, whose subject matter often
involves issues of deep human and moral concerns.

Total objectivity is probably impossible to achieve
in any science but a self-conscious effort to be as
objective as possible will produce vastly less
biased results than not making this attempt. This of
course does not mean that scientists should not express
personal opinions or value judgements. It means that
these judgements should be clearly labeled as such and
that they should not intrude into the actual process of
research and interpretation.

It would be perfectly
legitimate for a scientist to give as objective an
account as possible of a problem, and then add a subjective
judgement - provided that the judgement was presented as a
matter of personal opinion.

Every one, no exceptions, has biases.
I hope most consider issues from a position of understanding both sides.
But few do so.

Poirot, science has long recognised that people has predispositions, often based on the understandable desire to confirm that what they had inferred from limited data was not contradicted when larger data sets and more sophisticated analyses are available.

That is why the scientific method, with it's demand for falsifiability, has been so successful.

Biases only work for a while before reality interposes its inconvenient corporeum.

Or the Government one relies on for funding proves both incompetent and insubstatial.

Such is life...

Apologies in advance/arrears for the confused tenses...

of course..there is bias
thats why there is spin

only 1000 will pay[certainly not you
you will get extra]

only 500 will pay
but not you..you get extra

we only taxing the big poluters
but your going to pay big anyhow

we will put your tax onto dirty smokers now
we will put your tax..on carbon polution next
[
so by election time we can say
the new tax on 'resourxces]..not paid to you
means you get extra..

ps if you do the right thing[l;ike swallow the spin]
we will give you believers nice new solar cells
and those deneyers will pay them off for you

im so biased
im going off line 4 dec
because there are just too many bloggers..[paid to blog spin]

and im over trying to correct their profesional bias

hooray
johan finally goes away

On Radio National the other day, the Book Show I think, the justly celebrated second chapter of Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility was being discussed. It's only five or six pages long but it's a masterful and damning critique of the human capacity to rationalise their self-serving biases. After listening I had to run off and reread the chapter. There's no doubt Jane Austen despised most of her characters, based as they were so astutely on human weakness and vanity.

Poirot
That is why science involves peer review which is not perfect but reduces the possibilities of bias entering collection and analysis of evidence.

From the personal, I know my own reading choices tend to reflect already strongly held views in the main. I occasionally veer off but find myself thinking how can anyone believe this stance is ultimately best for society rather than cossetting a minority of those with vested interests, particularly when it comes to discussions of regulation.

Would it be a generalisation to suggest most people read more broadly when younger during those more formative years when ideas are only in their early stages? It is not only reading but listening and viewing media which might influence or consolidate an already held opinion.

We are all creatures of habit and as such gravitate mostly to others who share the same values and ideals. It is part of protecting identity and self-worth similar to religious adherence as if to confirm that you are okay. (That is enough of armchair psychology for one day). :)

Dear Pelly,

Welcome back. Glad to see you posting again.
You've been missed. Now I can relax seeing as you're
back.

Seriously though - well said.
Scientists, like anyone else, are
guilty of some measure of bias. The first step
is to recognise that subjectivity and objectivity
are not two neat and separate categories; they are
really matters of degree. By exercising scrupulous
caution the scientist can attempt to be as
objective as possible.

This caution involves a deliberate effort to be
conscious of one's own biases so that they can
be kept out of the process of research and
interpretation. The ethical code of the
descipline requires that scientists be intellectually
honest. That they attempt to be aware of their own
values and not allow these values to distort their
work and that they relentlessly hunt down the
relevant facts and not ignore those that are
inconvenient for their pet theories. That they
not manipulate data to prove a point and that they
not use research to suppress or misuse knowledge.

Moreover as you pointed out Pelly, the scientific
community does not have to rely entirely on the
integrity of the individual to ensure that objectivity
is strived for. When research is published, other
scientists can assess the findings and attempt to verify
them by repeating the research to see if it yields the
same results.

This procedure provides an effective check against
bias and other distortions.

Thanks guys...it does seem that scientific investigation does have its checks and balances to ward against the penchant for confirmation bias - although Ridley seemed to be of the opinion that climate scientists found confirmation bias in ongoing weather events. Ridley himself also seems to rely on this bias when putting forth his "lukewarmer" hypothesis....and it dovetails conveniently with his liberal rationalist approach - more confirmation bias.

Squeers,

I read the chapter, and yes it is a masterful rendering of "human ability to rationalise their self-serving bias."
Altruism and charitable ideals are particularly open to self-manipulation. I expect George W. Bush may have believed his government's line that the invasion of Iraq was to remove a tyrant and delivery democracy...that it was in reality a grab for resources and influence was no doubt rationalised away....and those who still believe that invasion was necessary for the Iraqis "own good" had their bias confirmed by the altruistic spin delivered by the Coalition of the Willing.

Thanks for the welcome Lexi. I have been extra busy lately with conflicting demands and projects.

Poirot I am not sure if George W really did believe the guff about bringing democracy to Iraq or ridding of a tyrant. The US government seemed quite happy with keeping this tyrant in power after Kuwait.

It was only after realising that Saddam wasn't playing the ball as expected (in puppet terms) that intervention to protect access to resources on US terms, war was deemed necessary.

That is why movements (eg. Wikileaks, Open Australia) pushing for reforms in FOI are all important. Not only in access to information but in transparency of negotiations between governments, lobbyists and supplierswhich are all too important in ensuring bias, scientific or otherwise, is open to all possible scrutiny.

Pelly,

You're probably right regarding Georgie, who appeared as not much more more than a dim-witted front of house puppet for the U.S. neoliberal regime. Still, it's amazing how many people bought the altruistic line.
It doesn't take much to rationalise things away.

(Glad you're back too :)

pelican,
did you hear Noam Chomsy on Sunday Profile? http://www.abc.net.au/rn/sundayprofile/stories/2011/3355217.htm He said that authorities in Iraq were eager to cooperate with Bush and asked to see the evidence of WMD's, but that the US refused to show it as they had none. Chomsky makes no bones about it, saying that Bush might have been tried and hung in former times, and that Australia was guilty of war crimes too in toadying association association. There was no valid pretext for the invasion.

The possible presence of WMD's in Iraq, promoted by the U.S. was the ultimate vehicle as a driver for confirmation bias in the minds of the general public.

Chomsky wrote in "Hegemony or Survival":
"With the Iraqi people at the edge of survival after a decade of destructive sanctions, international aid and medical agencies warned that a war might lead to a serious humanitarian catastrophe... The war involving the purposeful destruction of water, power and sewage systems took a terrible toll...."

Certainly it was a crime against humanity, yet the whole episode is seemingly mitigated in the minds of many on the grounds that the U.S. and the Coalition acted out of altruism.

You do carry on don't you? You sure know how to hate too.

Saddam Hussein was pushing his possession of WMD because after his army's destruction when thrown out of Kuwait, he was trying to stop Iran from walking right over him.

It must have fooled Iran, as they stayed home, so, if George is as dumb as you reckon, It probably fooled him too.

Why is it that the same people who want to destroy Oz, & the western world with a carbon [dioxide] tax, based on less evidence that those WMDs, would be happy to take the chance on there being WMDs?

Stories that the practice of self flagellation died out with a bunch of kooks in the middle ages are obviously much exaggerated. The kooks are alive & well, [well sort of], but the physical practice has transformed into a mental activity.

No guts these modern kooks, don't like the sight of real blood.

Thanks for the link squeers. Interesting and poignant comments about the concentration of power in light of the Occupy protests.

Hasbeen
Hate? What is wrong with pointing out discrepancies and lies promulgated by various governments?

You are quite happy in pointing out the perceived failures of the AlP Rudd/Gillard camp but I would not be so judgemental in labelling you a hater. That is just ad hominen attacks rather than thoughtful contribution to the discussion and keeping an open mind on what governments actually do rather than what they say.

That was entirely my point Pelican.

Lets talk about what governments do, rather that attribute some action we can find undesirable to them, without any proof, other than reinforcement of our opinion by our fellow travelers.

If I'm still around when the papers pertaining to that period are released, it will not be of much interest to me, unless of course I can say, "I told you so".

Not worth waiting around for really.

Dear Hasbeen,

You really need to pay a visit to your local library
and get a reference librarian to show you the "proof"
you claim doesn't exist yet. It actually does.
Much has been written about those governments and their
actions during the period you're referring to. There
are many sources of information available for you . All
you have to do is ask and you'll find out - as Pelly
and others have already done and know what they're
talking about.

Cheers.

Okay, Hasbeen, let's talk about what government's do.

Here's a link to what the Reagan administration did while supporting Iraq against Iran in that war.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Oh look, it seems they turned a blind-eye to Iraq's use of chemical weapons during that war.

Here's the conclusion from the paper:
"The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war". The documents included in this briefing book reflect "realpolitik" that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons...The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle Est, and to keep the oil flowing."

Toni couldn't make it again. Such an important vote and he missed it again. The tarnish is starting to form on Toni's armor.
The carbon tax will slot in like any other tax, Business is glad to know what they are looking at, and now can get on with what they do. A clean energy future can only make Australia a better place.

Dear 579,

Hear, Hear!

Tony is just keeping the seat warm for Malcolm. :)

Come on Lexi, you know I live with one. She's bl00dy hopeless with math too, but she has now seen the global warming con for what it is.

Pelican, if anyone is keeping a seat warm for Turnbull it's your Julie. About the only thing that could save labor now would be if Turnbull became liberal leader.

Katter would get more votes in Queensland, & probably the rest of Oz.

The Libs are too smart to want a Rudd clone, They've seen what those types do.

Hasbeen's trolling served to remind me of a very stark and tragic example of confirmation bias, the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes in July 1988 claiming all 290 passengers and crew.

To have seen an ascending Airbus A330 as an attacking F14 Tomcat fighter even though it was flying its scheduled run, was squarking a civilian code, and was correctly identified by two other US ships close by, screams failure yet the Captain and Targeting Officer were both commended.

The Iranians saw the act as deliberate and the Ayatollah Khomeini was reported as saying that he needed to settle with Saddam because the Americans were capable of doing anything to support him.

So what went wrong? Well the Vincennes was a billion dollar state of the art warship capable of tracking over a hundred planes simultaneously. Yet it also had a very aggressive Captain who had taken his ship illegally into Iranian waters chasing some speed boats that had shot at one of its helicopters.

Therefore the crew were on heightened alert. As the F14 base was next to the civilian airfield at Bandar Abbas the plane would have been flagged as a possible scrambled jet setting up the bias. The US crew tried to contact it on military channels which Flight 655 had no way of receiving. Non answer would have confirmed that bias and a mistaken reading of the “advanced Aegis radar that correctly tracked the flight and its Mode III beacon” would have escalated it. The Airbus' ascent was read as an attacking descent and ultimately the decision was made to fire two rockets which brought down the plane.

“the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment', which is said to occur when persons are under pressure.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Sounded terribly like confirmation bias to me.

Dear Hasbeen,

You live with one what?

Sorry, I don't understand what you're referring to.
Are you having an elderly moment? No offense.
Please explain.

You are having a gray moment Lexi. We did discuss many moons ago that both you, & my lady are research librarians.

I thought you would remember that.

Csteele as an ex navy fly boy, & watch keeper, I am actually believe I have a better idea of how things happen at sea, but I'll leave you to believe what ever spin that takes your fancy.

its a shame to just let such a topical topic die
so..

to-pick..a clear bias..
[and for lack of placing it..on another to-pick]

here goes my google search
http://www.google.com/search?q=getting+the+hell+out+of+here

and lo there it is
in pdf
http://new-birth.net/booklet/GettingOut.PDF

so let reveal the bias

""Credible does
not to me necessarily mean entirely accurate.

Spirits just like humans
have opinions, and do not all agree amongst themselves.

But a spirit
looking down from a substantial spiritual height
is likely to be more accurate than one new to spirit life.

I would like to add a caveat.

If you were to pick 100 locations across
this earth, and then take the description of one single example as a
perfect example of life on earth, clearly there are going to be many who would have significantly different experiences to that one sample of earth life.

So too are life after death stories. Expect differences in the
experience that every person will have,

but if you look for similarities,
these you will find.

the more you learn,
the more you realize that life after death is
even more complex than life here.

So I apologize in advance to any
reader who is aware that some things have been simplified.""

thusly do i confirm my bias