TIGHAR
Chatterbox => Theorizing about Theories => Topic started by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on April 05, 2014, 07:31:11 AM
-
It is standard practice in scholarship to peer review papers, in part because we all are biased.
If "we are all biased," that includes you.
If the proposition "we all are biased" means that individuals cannot be objective, that means that your remark is not objective.
If your remark is biased--if it is objectively true that it is not objective--then it is not a biased remark.
If it is not a biased remark, then it shows that biased people can be objective.
If it is true that biased people can be objective, that means that peer review is not required to achieve objectivity.
Therefore, there is no need for peer review. 8)
If it is true that "we all are biased," then the peer reviewers are biased.
If "biased" means "incapable of being objective," then the peer reviewers are incapable of being objective.
If the peer reviewers cannot be objective, they cannot correct the biases of the authors.
Therefore, peer review is impossible. :-X
Please do not quote the authority of large numbers of journals that require peer-reviewed papers in your reply.
The argument from authority is the weakest form of argument.
The argument from "what everyone does nowadays" is one of the weakest forms of the weakest form of argument. ::)
-
It is standard practice in scholarship to peer review papers, in part because we all are biased.
I have replied to this hasty generalization in a different part of the Forum (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1461.msg31213.html#msg31213).
Those interested in thinking about bias in a non-trivial way may wish to read about confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).
-
Those interested in thinking about bias in a non-trivial way may wish to read about confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).
Well, clearly, since you have already said that all humans are biased, and since you are a human being, it stands to reason that you would select an article that confirms your bias. That is what is to be expected as the logical conclusion from your principles.
Of course, if you mean recommend the article as something that is not biased and that is objectively true, then, of course, it ruins your thesis that all humans are so biased that they cannot be objective.
-
Those interested in thinking about bias in a non-trivial way may wish to read about confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).
Well, clearly, since you have already said that all humans are biased, and since you are a human being, it stands to reason that you would select an article that confirms your bias. That is what is to be expected as the logical conclusion from your principles.
Of course, if you mean recommend the article as something that is not biased and that is objectively true, then, of course, it ruins your thesis that all humans are so biased that they cannot be objective.
I think none of us are free of biases. Perhaps you think otherwise. I think you should be displaying your logical powers on that other thread you set to discuss the topic--good luck with that discussion. ;)
-
I think none of us are free of biases.
Yes, that is exactly what you've said before.
Different words, same thought.
"None of us" means you, too--if you mean by "none" and "us" what most people do.
It is so refreshing to hear a man plainly admit that he does not know how to be objective.
And quite amazing that he is certain that it is an objective fact that no one else knows how to be objective, either.
-
OK, I'll bite and provide some hasty generalizations of my own for you to attack, although I'm not sure why.
If the proposition "we all are biased" means that individuals cannot be objective,
This seems to be true only if you assume that bias and objectivity are absolutes. I think the terms are more commonly used to suggest some degree of the trait, not an either/or on/off proposition. We all have some degree of bias, some probably more than others, and some ability to set aside some bias and be more objective (although admittedly each of us is stuck with the mind he/she has). So I don't think Steve's means that people can't be objective to some degree, just that our biases tend to make it hard to do that.
If your remark is biased--if it is objectively true that it is not objective--then it is not a biased remark.
I think you've got a non-sequitur here, no? Seems you're saying if your remark is biased then it is not a biased remark. Maybe I'm missing something?
If it is true that biased people can be objective, that means that peer review is not required to achieve objectivity.
Well, technically your conclusion follows from the proposition in that peer review may not be required to achieve objectivity, at least to the extent humanly possible, but again, you're ignoring matters of degree. I think the point that Steve makes is that it may be easier or more likely to achieve a greater degree of objectivity if one has his or her work reviewed by other people with different points of view, not that it is absolutely impossible to achieve a good degree of objectivity without that review.
. Therefore, there is no need for peer review.
Again, maybe technically true that there is no absolute need to use peer review to achieve objectivity (or at least as close as humanly possible to achieve), but having input from a variety of viewpoints usually helps.
If it is true that "we all are biased," then the peer reviewers are biased.
If "biased" means "incapable of being objective," then the peer reviewers are incapable of being objective.
If the peer reviewers cannot be objective, they cannot correct the biases of the authors.
Therefore, peer review is impossible. :-X
See above re absolute vs degree. Not sure that bias means incapable of being objective, just less likely to be objective, hard to set aside your biases, etc.
Please do not quote the authority of large numbers of journals that require peer-reviewed papers in your reply.
OK boss. He who sets the parameters of the debate usually wins it.
The argument from authority is the weakest form of argument.
Says who?
In short, I don’t quite see what your point is or how it relates to Steve’s post. Steve made a sincere suggestion to have someone who has no dog in the fight look at the report before publishing it. I always appreciate someone doing this for me. I wrote this reply hastily. If someone would have looked at it for me before I posted it, they may have noticed all of its flws and helped me make it better, thereby saving me your upcoming wrath.
My point is that although it may be philosophically impossible for any human to achieve absolute cosmic objectivity, not so better writing. That can frequently be achieved by a fresh set of eyes, just as Steve suggested.
-
I think none of us are free of biases.
Yes, that is exactly what you've said before.
Different words, same thought.
"None of us" means you, too--if you mean by "none" and "us" what most people do.
It is so refreshing to hear a man plainly admit that he does not know how to be objective.
And quite amazing that he is certain that it is an objective fact that no one else knows how to be objective, either.
Thanks for moving the posts over Marty—to try to give this thread the solid three-digit view count it deserves, I’ll bite (once) too.
Of course my belief that people are biased applies to me, too. Are you free of biases, Marty? I would love to meet a person who is free of biases, so if you’re that person, please let me know. :)
It doesn’t follow from my belief that all people have biases that ‘all humans are so biased that they cannot be objective’. You’ll have to find someone who actually believes that to argue with.
Another interesting phenomenon besides confirmation bias, that I in my undoubtedly biased way think groups working together to reach conclusions should be aware of is Groupthink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink):
“Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the “outgroup"."
Dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup". Food for thought there, for sure, I think.
-
So I don't think Steve means that people can't be objective to some degree, just that our biases tend to make it hard to do that.
If that's what he meant, he should have used some words along those lines.
His claim, in his own words, was unqualified.
If your remark is biased--if it is objectively true that it is not objective--then it is not a biased remark.
I think you've got a non-sequitur here, no? Seems you're saying if your remark is biased then it is not a biased remark. Maybe I'm missing something?
If the person is, in fact, biased, and if, in fact, the remark they make that "all remarks are biased" is objectively true, then their action of making an objective statement of truth demonstrates that being biased does not stand in the way of finding objective truth.
This is a variation of "The Liar's Paradox," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox) of course. And that, in turn, is a sample of the kind of self-referential statement that Gödel used to prove his Incompleteness Theorem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems)
If it is true that biased people can be objective, that means that peer review is not required to achieve objectivity.
Well, technically your conclusion follows from the proposition in that peer review may not be required to achieve objectivity, at least to the extent humanly possible, but again, you're ignoring matters of degree.
So did the original poster. He spoke in absolutes. I responded to him in absolutes.
I think the point that Steve makes is that it may be easier or more likely to achieve a greater degree of objectivity if one has his or her work reviewed by other people with different points of view, not that it is absolutely impossible to achieve a good degree of objectivity without that review.
If achieving objectivity requires review absolutely, then the reviewers would require reviewers, who would require reviewers, who would require reviewers ... If the reviewers need not be reviewed, one wonders how it is that they, though biased (the original poster's absolute hypothesis) achieve objectivity and bestow objectivity on the work of others. What is it about naming them "reviewers" that bestows this super-power on them?
. Therefore, there is no need for peer review.
Again, maybe technically true that there is no absolute need to use peer review to achieve objectivity (or at least as close as humanly possible to achieve), but having input from a variety of viewpoints usually helps.
I am offering a different viewpoint from the original poster here. I'm surprised that you haven't thanked me for reviewing his work and pointing out flaws in his thinking. If he had said something as gentle and well-qualified as what you have just said, I wouldn't have given it a second thought.
The argument from authority is the weakest form of argument.
Says who?
That's the spirit! ;D
In short, I don’t quite see what your point is or how it relates to Steve’s post. Steve made a sincere suggestion to have someone who has no dog in the fight look at the report before publishing it.
The reason he gave for making the recommendation differs in words and in meaning from your words and meaning.
My point is that although it may be philosophically impossible for any human to achieve absolute cosmic objectivity, not so better writing. That can frequently be achieved by a fresh set of eyes, just as Steve suggested.
I'm delighted that you've noticed this is a philosophical argument. The statement that "all humans are biased" is not self-evident, it is not a finding of logic, mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology. It is a generalization based on the supposition that the speaker knows human nature. It applies to all human beings, past, present, and to come. I don't mind philosophers making and defending generalizations about human nature. This particular generalization--as stated in the absolute language of the original poster, not as qualified by you in your post--seems to me to be self-referentially inconsistent, which, as I understand it, is a sign of an untenable position in philosophy.
-
Marty – Thank you for the kind tone of your response. I understand your point better now. Just a couple of observations, although no substantive quarrels with anything you’ve said.
This is a variation of "The Liar's Paradox," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox) of course. And that, in turn, is a sample of the kind of self-referential statement that Gödel used to prove his Incompleteness Theorem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems)
Ah yes, silly me. The liar's paradox was even rolling around in my head when I first looked at what you said. Well Captain Kirk's Star Trek version (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,453.0.html)of it anyway, the one that caused a super controlling android that had taken over the Enterprise to melt down. Somehow I just didn't make the connection. As for Gödel, I never much liked him anyway.
The argument from authority is the weakest form of argument.
Says who?
That's the spirit! ;D
Touché! ;)
The statement that "all humans are biased" is not self-evident, it is not a finding of logic, mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology. It is a generalization based on the supposition that the speaker knows human nature. It applies to all human beings, past, present, and to come. I don't mind philosophers making and defending generalizations about human nature. This particular generalization--as stated in the absolute language of the original poster, not as qualified by you in your post--seems to me to be self-referentially inconsistent, which, as I understand it, is a sign of an untenable position in philosophy.
Your philosophical and logical arguments are flawless, as far as I can tell, but then again I am biased. That was a joke. OK, maybe not a good one, but a joke nonetheless. And I'm serious about my agreement with your philosophical argument.
So did the original poster. He spoke in absolutes. I responded to him in absolutes.
This is the only point on which we differ. I think he spoke in non-technical generalities, the same as the vast majority of the posters on this forum, about the value of peer review in generally helping to overcome bias issues and making one's writing stronger. I can see your philosophical objections to his comments if one were to view them as absolutes, I'm just not sure why one would, which is why I am not a philosopher.
-
I think he spoke in non-technical generalities, the same as the vast majority of the posters on this forum, about the value of peer review in generally helping to overcome bias issues and making one's writing stronger. I can see your philosophical objections to his comments if one were to view them as absolutes, I'm just not sure why one would, which is why I am not a philosopher.
The original poster seems to me to have a bizarre idea about peer review.
All of my academic articles and books have been reviewed by my peers.
I have reviewed articles and books for others.
I know how the process works.
I have benefited from it, and I hope that I have benefited others.
"Peer review" does not mean that creationists get to veto the publications of atheist biologists nor that global warmers get to block the publication of those who question their argument.
Astrophysicists predicted that they would find polarization of light in the cosmic background radiation as a consequence of gravitational waves generated by inflation in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second of time. They couldn't have gone looking for the polarization if they didn't have a theory of what to look for. They had to build special detectors to conduct the search. They found what they were looking for. The people whose judgment I respect do not treat them "finding what they were looking for" as "confirmation bias." It's called "confirmation of a theory."
-
It is standard practice in scholarship to peer review papers, in part because we all are biased.
Sorry, but you can't prove that.
Learn not to make categorical statements about humans, of all people.
-
It is standard practice in scholarship to peer review papers, in part because we all are biased.
Sorry, but you can't prove that.
Learn not to make categorical statements about humans, of all people.
I guess I'm just not an 'up with people' kind of person, Kent.
You can prove me of all people wrong by naming someone who is free of all biases. In the meanwhile, here is another interesting article about humans and their tendency to have biases:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
-
You can prove me of all people wrong by naming someone who is free of all biases.
I have no problem with you confessing your biases.
I find your view of judgment badly skewed.
Such a confession would be most welcome.
But you seem to be generalizing about all human beings--and insisting on the truth of your absolute generalization--with no suspicion of your own bias. That seems self-referentially inconsistent to me.
-
You can prove me of all people wrong by naming someone who is free of all biases.
I have no problem with you confessing your biases.
I find your view of judgment badly skewed.
Such a confession would be most welcome.
But you seem to be generalizing about all human beings--and insisting on the truth of your absolute generalization--with no suspicion of your own bias. That seems self-referentially inconsistent to me.
Yes, I am generalizing about other human beings. I think most reasonable people would agree with me that most people are biased, and the article I linked to indicates that I am not alone.
I find your judgement badly skewed, so I guess we're even.
What am I supposed to confess to--having biases? I've already done so (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1461.msg31229.html#msg31229) on this thread.
I'm mystified as to why this is such a touchy subject for you, Marty. I think somewhere on this site is a set of rules/suggestions about good web etiquette in which you suggest that posters to the Forum try to avoid endless back-and-forth bickering, so in that spirit I think we should both just agree to disagree. If you must have the last word, please go ahead. But if you do so, please answer a question I asked upthread--whether you yourself are free of biases and then answer the question whether your answer is 'self-referentially inconsistent'
-
I think most reasonable people would agree with me that most people are biased, and the article I linked to indicates that I am not alone.
I understand that you think you are acting reasonably.
What am I supposed to confess to--having biases? I've already done so (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1461.msg31229.html#msg31229) on this thread.
You are not recognizing your bias about biases.
You have not been peer-reviewed in this thread.
You are claiming objectivity despite your indictment of our ability to be objective.
You advance your view as a universal truth that all should accept.
You are using a double standard. The freedom you give yourself to act as the paragon of reason is withheld from others.
I'm mystified as to why this is such a touchy subject for you, Marty.
My Ph.D. dissertation dealt with epistemology. I am convinced by Michael Polanyi that absurd standards of certitude poison our society.
I think somewhere on this site is a set of rules/suggestions about good web etiquette in which you suggest that posters to the Forum try to avoid endless back-and-forth bickering, so in that spirit I think we should both just agree to disagree.
Yes, there is a thread about etiquette (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,377.0.html).
If you must have the last word, please go ahead. But if you do so, please answer a question I asked upthread--whether you yourself are free of biases and then answer the question whether your answer is 'self-referentially inconsistent'
It is self-referentially consistent for me to say that I think 1) that I can think objectively and 2) that I think invocation of a principal of "universal bias" is absurd.
-
Let' see now, X claims everyone has some bias, about something. Now to prove that claim
X need only examine the 5 billion or so humans on the planet, in an exhaustive fashion,
using lie detector tests, etc.
The main issue here is that, in the field of science, personal bias is irelevant. Scientists don't
(or shouldn't) judge the plausibility of a theory by trying to figure out whether the
person who advanced same is biased. Or whether they have green toenails, either.
You're in the realm of ad hominem fallacies if you do. Now if the person judging the plausibility
of a theory is biased, that's his problem. The theory and its supporting evidence remains unaltered irregardless of any bias of that sort.
-
The theory and its supporting evidence remains unaltered irregardless of any bias of that sort.
Your green toenails are showing.
-
Since when did 'bias' get such a sullied reputation as to be considered an object of such... bias?
Every human being alive is full of bias, at least in terms of being limited by one's own knowledge or ability to understand or tolerate those things that are observable around them. Obviously what matters is the more willfully applied form of bias, when it occurs - whether one acts or reports in an arbitrary way on a crucial subject because of some bias of laziness, level of comfort or avoidance of upsetting convention - or determination to actively upset a convention. Those are not marks of the more able observer and reporter, for sure - bias tends to be consciously avoided by such people for the most part.
Then it becomes hardly worth the mention: the material presented by someone who had applied bias, willfully or not, would soon be revealed to the critically qualified reviewer as something less-than objectively given, IMO, i.e. one may judge for one's self, keeping in mind one's own limitations and... biases.
It seems then more a matter of how well an individual reporter chooses to behave - and IMO, a serious academically-minded person would clearly avoid the application of human bias. Is that perhaps more the argument?
If it is - and I tend to believe it is so, then the reviewer bears the burden of rooting out bias and proclaiming it, if necessary, in a clear, bias-free manner. A broadcast assumption of human bias at every turn is far too sweeping to be effective - it is mere smoke drifting across what may well be a reasonable report, in my own biased view. That bias also is chilling, IMO - it is as if a tool of the would-be censor. It is therefore also possibly not a question of whether I've just made a biased statement about the application of bias and human nature due to my own human nature, but whether it is reasonably biased toward my position by some acceptable convention of judgment...
The point of wide-spread human bias then becomes moot, IMO - every position worthy of consideration also deserves critical review and responsible comment should the reviewer deem it so important. This is so whether commentary is supportive or challenging; that burden necessarily falls to the commenter every time, *regardless of any bias otherwise.
(*The preferred form of the common expression, IMO, so as to avoid the dubious and double negative form of same; my propensity to remark thus reveals also a pet peeve, one rather definite form of bias, however right or wrong I may be.)
There the thing seems to stand in my view. It does nothing for me to wave off an account of a civil war battle as unreliable because a mere human being wrote it and it therefore is necessarily 'biased'; nor should I attack it at face value simply because of an absence of peer review. I believe I could do no more than state "it lacks peer review", were that the case, and would bear the burden of saying substantially why the account is unreliable due to bias, were I to proceed that way. I must identify why the writer either exercised or overlooked personal bias - if I can reasonably show that such a thing is causal. Otherwise I would display mere bias of my own; I think I would be rightly limited to a factual comparison and realize that the writer might have had limited information, etc.
That this string has grown as it has underscores for me that many have green toenails where others might prefer, say, purple (I am biased toward blue, personally), and that differing opinions - necessarily born of bias since human experience and knowledge from different perspectives are brought to bear, are creatures of some bias themselves...
The question then may be: is bias material to the argument? If so, has something thereby made the point impeachable as an unreliable or stilted product of bias?
My bias toward bloviation is now slaked; I am off to polish my own toenails... I so wish others could see the loveliness of blue as I do.
-
A common danger in academia is getting too far into your own head - like standing in the middle of a tunnel and realizing you're just as far in as you'll ever be out.
We try to eliminate bias, but ... people remain people no matter what we do with them. The scientific method is one way to arrive at an eventual end. It's not the only way. It may not always be the best way. But in TIGHAR's case, it gives structure to our efforts and allows us to advance the body of knowledge about what happened to Amelia and Fred.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP