All Scientists are Biased --> Neurobiological Approach

[sookster]

I am going to cite my source because I am going to quote from it:

Sternberg, Eliezer J. My Brain Made me do It. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2010. Print

There are many concepts talked about in this book, but I want to focus on the 7th chapter. The whole book is focusing on free will vs. determinism, and the author is focusing on case studies on the brain. Phineas Gage and Elliot both had damage to the frontal cortex more specifically the orbitofrontal cortex. One had a rod go through his head while the other had a tumor taken out. What little is known about this region is that it is responsible with emotional regulation with other areas of the brain. Scientists think that it initiates emotion. When the injury happened to the subjects, not only did they have a different personality due to the different emotions, but they simply make bad decisions. So obviously, this region is a part of the decision making process. But why? Put simply, a concept called somantic markers. It is basically bodily, gut, emotional feelings that are associated with an event and it added to memory. And I quote:

What does the somatic marker achieve? It forces attention on the negative outcome to which a given action may lead, and functions as an automated alarm signal which says, "Beware of danger ahead if you choose this option which leads to this outcome." The signal may make you reject immediately the negative course of action and thus make you choose among other alternatives."

(page 70)

As the author also puts it, this conclusion says that reason depends upon emotion.

This basically means that previous experiences and their emotions put in memory have an influence on reason, period. Because of a region in our brains that is right under the pre-frontal cortex, the center for reasoning and executive functioning.

My long point?

All scientists are emotionally biased because they are human. There are multiple ways to interpret data, and there is multiple experiments with different data. So a scientist can never be unbiased because of their brains. So I really think the importance of this is that I think people should look at the data themselves, and read the studies themselves rather than seeing an "expert" or scientist on mainstream media, and sharing their conclusions because they said it. And again, you will read those experiments with some bias. In of itself, the scientific method can never be practiced in perfection, simply because of the orbitofrontal cortex.

 

[Summerwind]

I am going to cite my source because I am going to quote from it:

Sternberg, Eliezer J. My Brain Made me do It. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2010. Print

There are many concepts talked about in this book, but I want to focus on the 7th chapter. The whole book is focusing on free will vs. determinism, and the author is focusing on case studies on the brain. Phineas Gage and Elliot both had damage to the frontal cortex more specifically the orbitofrontal cortex. One had a rod go through his head while the other had a tumor taken out. What little is known about this region is that it is responsible with emotional regulation with other areas of the brain. Scientists think that it initiates emotion. When the injury happened to the subjects, not only did they have a different personality due to the different emotions, but they simply make bad decisions. So obviously, this region is a part of the decision making process. But why? Put simply, a concept called somantic markers. It is basically bodily, gut, emotional feelings that are associated with an event and it added to memory. And I quote:

(page 70)

As the author also puts it, this conclusion says that reason depends upon emotion.

This basically means that previous experiences and their emotions put in memory have an influence on reason, period. Because of a region in our brains that is right under the pre-frontal cortex, the center for reasoning and executive functioning.

My long point?

All scientists are emotionally biased because they are human. There are multiple ways to interpret data, and there is multiple experiments with different data. So a scientist can never be unbiased because of their brains. So I really think the importance of this is that I think people should look at the data themselves, and read the studies themselves rather than seeing an "expert" or scientist on mainstream media, and sharing their conclusions because they said it. And again, you will read those experiments with some bias. In of itself, the scientific method can never be practiced in perfection, simply because of the orbitofrontal cortex.

#1 I don't need a study to know all persons are biased, that's a given.
#2 Regardless of this or any study, one should always do their due diligence when anyone, expert or not, suggests a factual evidence. We may find a layman makes more sense than an expert, or we may find a bribed expert, or it could be as hoped and the expert is both reliable in his field and has presented a true and unbiased theory, whether it's unbiased by design or by accident.

 

[longview]

I am going to cite my source because I am going to quote from it:

Sternberg, Eliezer J. My Brain Made me do It. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2010. Print

There are many concepts talked about in this book, but I want to focus on the 7th chapter. The whole book is focusing on free will vs. determinism, and the author is focusing on case studies on the brain. Phineas Gage and Elliot both had damage to the frontal cortex more specifically the orbitofrontal cortex. One had a rod go through his head while the other had a tumor taken out. What little is known about this region is that it is responsible with emotional regulation with other areas of the brain. Scientists think that it initiates emotion. When the injury happened to the subjects, not only did they have a different personality due to the different emotions, but they simply make bad decisions. So obviously, this region is a part of the decision making process. But why? Put simply, a concept called somantic markers. It is basically bodily, gut, emotional feelings that are associated with an event and it added to memory. And I quote:

(page 70)

As the author also puts it, this conclusion says that reason depends upon emotion.

This basically means that previous experiences and their emotions put in memory have an influence on reason, period. Because of a region in our brains that is right under the pre-frontal cortex, the center for reasoning and executive functioning.

My long point?

All scientists are emotionally biased because they are human. There are multiple ways to interpret data, and there is multiple experiments with different data. So a scientist can never be unbiased because of their brains. So I really think the importance of this is that I think people should look at the data themselves, and read the studies themselves rather than seeing an "expert" or scientist on mainstream media, and sharing their conclusions because they said it. And again, you will read those experiments with some bias. In of itself, the scientific method can never be practiced in perfection, simply because of the orbitofrontal cortex.

Processes can be put into place to limit the personal bias, like double blind studies.
I agree that bold statements in Science, need to be subjected to a thorough sanity check.
Most anyone with a BS degree and a functioning mind, should be able look at some new concept for plausibility.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

People tend to think that scientist are somehow pure logic, Spock like if you will but the truth is they go into issues like AGW with their own bias and try to prove they are right more than try to root out the actual science.

 

[LowDown]

I am going to cite my source because I am going to quote from it:

Sternberg, Eliezer J. My Brain Made me do It. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2010. Print

There are many concepts talked about in this book, but I want to focus on the 7th chapter. The whole book is focusing on free will vs. determinism, and the author is focusing on case studies on the brain. Phineas Gage and Elliot both had damage to the frontal cortex more specifically the orbitofrontal cortex. One had a rod go through his head while the other had a tumor taken out. What little is known about this region is that it is responsible with emotional regulation with other areas of the brain. Scientists think that it initiates emotion. When the injury happened to the subjects, not only did they have a different personality due to the different emotions, but they simply make bad decisions. So obviously, this region is a part of the decision making process. But why? Put simply, a concept called somantic markers. It is basically bodily, gut, emotional feelings that are associated with an event and it added to memory. And I quote:

(page 70)

As the author also puts it, this conclusion says that reason depends upon emotion.

This basically means that previous experiences and their emotions put in memory have an influence on reason, period. Because of a region in our brains that is right under the pre-frontal cortex, the center for reasoning and executive functioning.

My long point?

All scientists are emotionally biased because they are human. There are multiple ways to interpret data, and there is multiple experiments with different data. So a scientist can never be unbiased because of their brains. So I really think the importance of this is that I think people should look at the data themselves, and read the studies themselves rather than seeing an "expert" or scientist on mainstream media, and sharing their conclusions because they said it. And again, you will read those experiments with some bias. In of itself, the scientific method can never be practiced in perfection, simply because of the orbitofrontal cortex.

That's what the scientific method is all about, eliminating bias in as far as is possible. I know it can be done because I've seen it happen many times; you can get good, unbiased results from well designed studies. In general, large blinded, randomized, controlled studies in which different people are in charge of administering treatments in medical trials and collecting and analysing data give the most unbiased results. Small studies, in which the same people do everything, are most likely to be biased.