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.