"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory-if we look for confirmations." This is Popper's first conclusion in section I.I could not agree more that if one is looking for a confirmation, then it won't be difficult to find one.I think that if one "admires" a theory or hypothesis, he will perceive everything in light of that theory and will be searching to verify the theory.One begins to form his observations based on the theory, and not the contrary.This reminds me of the images of the dog and of Jesus that we looked at in class.Once we saw the intended images, we could not avoid our eyes drifting to the them.I think that admirers of a theory experience a similar phenomenon: once they believe something to be true, they will always be able to find verification and will always be zoned in on the theory.Thus, I agree with Popper that "science must begin with myths" (26).I think that science begins with a myth, then one forms a hypothesis or theory, and then observations follow.It seems to me that the "earlier kind of observations" are encompassed by the myth.And in the scientific approach, one will actually look to refute his theory with the "later kind of observations," although the admirer will be racking up support and looking for confirmation of the theory.
Out of context Sherlock Holmes quote: 'Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.'
All in all, I agree. Science and more often pseudo-science is full of examples of confirmation bias, and it's hard to get away from that; it's a seemingly ingrained part of our psychology.
I disagree on the last point though, that admirers look for confirmation. The phenomenon of confirmation bias happens also with very intelligent scientists, those who know better than to consciously look for confirmation. Maybe they are even looking for these refutations! But they genuinely believe they see evidence that others don't.
I don't think it's that easy to divide the admirers from the Popperian scientists. It's true that there are people that are blatantly blinded by their personal beliefs about a theory. But we ought to remember that this confirmation bias is an inescapable part of science, as it is an inescapable element of our cognition. It happens to all of us, and the scary part is that we often don't recognize it.
There was a good article in the Scientific American about confirmation bias in the sciences; I'll try to find it.
I would be interested in reading that article, and I really like that Sherlock Holmes quote. I agree that confirmation bias is part of our cognition, and I think that there is a fine line between the "admirers" and the Popperian scientists. I too find it natural to search for confirmation but through Popper's paper I have resigned to the fact that perhaps the best way to do so is to show that a theory cannot be refuted. The difference between the admirer and the scientist, as I see it, is the way that they search for confirmation, as both obviously want to confirm their theories. The admirer always wants to show that he is right, whereas the scientist wants to prove that he is not wrong.
Good post, and good ensuing discussion. I think one way we might make progress on the difficult issue of distinguishing the admirers from the good scientists is to try to distinguish the cases when treating an observation as confirming one's theory is *crazy* (as in the joke, where the guy manages to treat a piece of toast that lands butter up as confirming his theory that toast always lands butter down!) from those that are not crazy.
On the issue of the inescapability of confirmation bias... I agree that confirmation bias is a fact, but I wonder about whether it is inescapable... How would one establish that? After all, we can (we think!) recognize when it happens, and take steps to avoid it. So it isn't true that every case of confirmation is a case of confirmation-bias. So, it what sense is it "inescapable"? Perhaps in the sense that no person can be completely devoid of it? But that is a general claim that cannot be established by finite observations, so how is it established. Note that there is a "meta" level risk here: might the psychologists who advance the thesis that confirmation-bias is inescapable be themselves guilty of interpreting certain cases as confirming their theory?! Indeed, by their own lights, shouldn't they be worried that they *are* guilty of it? In which case, how can they be confident of the evidence for "the inescapability of confirmation-bias"?!
Very interesting discussion so far! I think that the confirmation bias idea is intriguing--I don't think that it's necessarily always correct. It seems to me that it is possible for one to think in a more objective manner about a topic even if there is a subjective bias that still exists. However, it is clear that in many cases the confirmation bias does play a role; sometimes even in a productive manner such as when a scientist searches for evidence for a belief and actually does make strong discoveries of evidence that either refutes or supports the belief.
I really like Dr. Wallhagen's counter example as well! Without proper evidence for the confirmation bias always existing, maintaining that it exists could just be an example of the confirmation bias in itself if one will look for proof of what one believes.
Out of context Sherlock Holmes quote: 'Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.'
ReplyDeleteAll in all, I agree. Science and more often pseudo-science is full of examples of confirmation bias, and it's hard to get away from that; it's a seemingly ingrained part of our psychology.
I disagree on the last point though, that admirers look for confirmation. The phenomenon of confirmation bias happens also with very intelligent scientists, those who know better than to consciously look for confirmation. Maybe they are even looking for these refutations! But they genuinely believe they see evidence that others don't.
I don't think it's that easy to divide the admirers from the Popperian scientists. It's true that there are people that are blatantly blinded by their personal beliefs about a theory. But we ought to remember that this confirmation bias is an inescapable part of science, as it is an inescapable element of our cognition. It happens to all of us, and the scary part is that we often don't recognize it.
There was a good article in the Scientific American about confirmation bias in the sciences; I'll try to find it.
I would be interested in reading that article, and I really like that Sherlock Holmes quote. I agree that confirmation bias is part of our cognition, and I think that there is a fine line between the "admirers" and the Popperian scientists. I too find it natural to search for confirmation but through Popper's paper I have resigned to the fact that perhaps the best way to do so is to show that a theory cannot be refuted. The difference between the admirer and the scientist, as I see it, is the way that they search for confirmation, as both obviously want to confirm their theories. The admirer always wants to show that he is right, whereas the scientist wants to prove that he is not wrong.
ReplyDeleteGood post, and good ensuing discussion. I think one way we might make progress on the difficult issue of distinguishing the admirers from the good scientists is to try to distinguish the cases when treating an observation as confirming one's theory is *crazy* (as in the joke, where the guy manages to treat a piece of toast that lands butter up as confirming his theory that toast always lands butter down!) from those that are not crazy.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of the inescapability of confirmation bias... I agree that confirmation bias is a fact, but I wonder about whether it is inescapable... How would one establish that? After all, we can (we think!) recognize when it happens, and take steps to avoid it. So it isn't true that every case of confirmation is a case of confirmation-bias. So, it what sense is it "inescapable"? Perhaps in the sense that no person can be completely devoid of it? But that is a general claim that cannot be established by finite observations, so how is it established. Note that there is a "meta" level risk here: might the psychologists who advance the thesis that confirmation-bias is inescapable be themselves guilty of interpreting certain cases as confirming their theory?! Indeed, by their own lights, shouldn't they be worried that they *are* guilty of it? In which case, how can they be confident of the evidence for "the inescapability of confirmation-bias"?!
Very interesting discussion so far! I think that the confirmation bias idea is intriguing--I don't think that it's necessarily always correct. It seems to me that it is possible for one to think in a more objective manner about a topic even if there is a subjective bias that still exists. However, it is clear that in many cases the confirmation bias does play a role; sometimes even in a productive manner such as when a scientist searches for evidence for a belief and actually does make strong discoveries of evidence that either refutes or supports the belief.
ReplyDeleteI really like Dr. Wallhagen's counter example as well! Without proper evidence for the confirmation bias always existing, maintaining that it exists could just be an example of the confirmation bias in itself if one will look for proof of what one believes.