What is Biased Science

What is Biased Science?

Science is an ever-emergent process of information integration and growth.
Let me first clarify what is meant when the term “science” is used:

The Scientific Method – is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and/or the natural universe as we know it, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
Consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, the formulation, testing, and modification of hypothesis.
Experiments need to be designed to test hypotheses.
The most important part of the scientific method is the experiment.
The scientific method is a continuous process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world.
Learn more about the scientific method here:
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

The Sciences consist of the STEM fields: (Science Technology Engineering Mathematics)
– many different fields and sub-fields, using the scientific method to gain an understanding through repeatability and measure-ability of objectively verifiable actions/information.
Science is seemingly only limited by the amount of information received, or the ability of societal operating methods that could potentially hinder any sort of inquiries..

Agreed not All can conduct the experiments needed for subjective experience, since the funding for most studies comes from corporate / government backing, it is understandable to then get confused about biased science.

Biased science is a thing, yes, But biased science includes the funding of a study of something that is false and trying to spin it as true, or the funding of a study and then only a portion of the data is used for a specific end, usually being a profit maximization agenda.
The issue is Not the information and data obtained by the scientific method, but how that information and data are spun to a specific agenda by those who “claim” “ownership” of said ‘information’ and/or resource/s being exploited/extorted, which such actions are inherent within the paradigm of capitalism.

Technophobia can be justifiable under capitalist modus operandi, but in the same regard, that technology can also get us out of the need to rely upon capitalism if used correctly.

The information the the scientific method obtains, can of course be used for malicious purposes, but then It is not science, but the socio-economic system that is the issue.
Without any form of “science” we would have next to nothing.
Capitalism exploits everything. science just gives verifiable information and data, the corporations choose to use it for a specific agenda.

If one is able to utilize Critical Thought, then one can be able to Understand the Information being presented and know how to discern Fact from Fiction.
Who really cares about who is saying what?
When it comes to actual “Science”, opinions and Agendas mean jack shit.

When we use the term science, it is representative of a process, a method, a tool for understanding the “facts”.
The theories/theorem that come out of scientific processes can then be construed as an objectively verifiable truth/s.
Now why is that important?
If we understood how to understand something, then we could have a foundation of knowledge not built upon ignorance, but physically referential and objectively verifiable information.
And thus we would be able to advance as a species instead of destroy ourselves in blatant wilful ignorance.

It is also important to note the difference between Science and ‘Scientism.

Science:
(from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) Is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material universe; the social sciences, which study people and societies; and the formal sciences, which study logic and mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations. Disciplines which use science, like engineering and medicine, may also be considered to be applied sciences. Definitions of science and its more fundamental problems are discussed in the philosophy of science. Branches of science that place little emphasis on discussion and dialectic reasoning are related to the philosophical position of positivism.

Empirical investigations of the natural world, especially in astronomy and medicine, are found in many ancient civilizations. Non-supernatural explanations for natural phenomena appear in the 6th century BC in the works of Thales and the pre-Socratics. The scientific method developed gradually over several centuries, a precursor in ancient Greece was the categories of Aristotle, continuing with Ibn al-Haytham in his Book of Optics, and developing further during the Renaissance (Descartes, Galileo). Modern Science has its roots in the Scientific Revolution of the 16th century, with the pace of scientific advances increasing at an accelerating pace ever since. In the 17th and 18th centuries, natural scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge of cause and effect in terms of physical laws, aided by advances in mathematics. Later, improved knowledge of statistical methods gave rise to statistical hypothesis testing as a means to gather detailed knowledge in a number of fields.

From classical antiquity through the 19th century, science as a type of knowledge was more closely linked to philosophy than it is now, and in the Western world the term “natural philosophy” once encompassed fields of study that are today associated with science, such as astronomy, medicine, and physics. Over the course of the 19th century, the word “science” became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself as a disciplined way to study the natural world. It was during this time that scientific disciplines such as biology, chemistry, and physics reached their modern shapes. During the same period, the terms “scientist” and “scientific community” originated, scientific institutions were founded, and the interactions of science with society and other aspects of culture became increasingly significant.

Scientism:
Is a topic of major contention in the philosophy of science and philosophy in general. While often used as a term of abuse, it is also used in a descriptive sense to refer to any philosophy that treats science as the only means of acquiring knowledge (for various definitions of “knowledge”). For this reason, scientism is often associated with logical positivism, which attempted to do away with metaphysics entirely. The role of scientism in modernity is also a point of debate in social theory. Postmodernism in particular sought to critique scientism.

Scientism or implicit scientistic attitudes are often characterized by a conflation of moral and scientific progress, an overzealous application of simplistic reductionist methodology and, especially in the social sciences, the logical fallacy of reification, in which an abstract metric is treated as something “real.” It also tends to be accompanied by loads of sciencey technobabble.
Here are some examples:
-Theories rooted in some form of social Darwinism, such as eugenics and “scientific” racism. And we know what the end result of that was.
-“Scientific Socialism“
-Taylorism, or “Scientific Management.”
-Widespread use of questionable personality tests in businesses and schools.
-Most pop evolutionary psychology attempting to characterize “human nature.”
-Economics, supply-demand, homo economicus, perfectly competitive markets, the free market myth, etc.

Unfortunately it gets mixed into the crank usage when someone is told their favorite thing is actually full of shit. Rationally speaking, one should realize that science (in its proper meaning) deals with analyzing empirical evidence logically and deducing objective facts: It does not take an active role in determining what one should do or how they must act, that would be Hume’s law in action; nor does it deal with subjective thought systems (ranging from arts to moral codes) or ideologies in general.

Evidence – Broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

Faith and rationality are two ideologies that exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is based on reason or facts. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. The word faith sometimes refers to a belief that is held with lack of reason or evidence, a belief that is held in spite of or against reason or evidence, or it can refer to belief based upon a degree of evidential warrant.

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard. Truth may also often be used in modern contexts to refer to an idea of “truth to self,” or authenticity.

The commonly understood opposite of truth is falsehood, which, correspondingly, can also take on a logical, factual, or ethical meaning. The concept of truth is discussed and debated in several contexts, including philosophy, art, and religion. Many human activities depend upon the concept, where its nature as a concept is assumed rather than being a subject of discussion; these include most (but not all) of the sciences, law, journalism, and everyday life. Some philosophers view the concept of truth as basic, and unable to be explained in any terms that are more easily understood than the concept of truth itself. Commonly, truth is viewed as the correspondence of language or thought to an independent reality, in what is sometimes called the correspondence theory of truth.

A fact is something that is true or can be proved with evidence. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).

Reality is the state of things in which they exist physically, rather than one in which they may appear or might be imagined. Reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes that which has existed, exists, or will exist.

Philosophers, mathematicians, and other ancient and modern thinkers, such as Aristotle, Plato, Frege, Wittgenstein, and Russell, have made a distinction between thought corresponding to reality, coherent abstractions (thoughts of things that are imaginable but not real), and that which cannot even be rationally thought. By contrast, existence is often restricted solely to that which has physical existence or has a direct basis in it in the way that thoughts do in the brain.

Reality is often contrasted with what is imaginary, illusory, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, what is false, what is fictional, or what is abstract. At the same time, what is abstract plays a role both in everyday life and in academic research. For instance, causality, virtue, life, and distributive justice are abstract concepts that can be difficult to define, but they are only rarely equated with pure delusions. Both the existence and reality of abstractions are in dispute: one extreme position regards them as mere words; another position regards them as higher truths than less abstract concepts. This disagreement is the basis of the philosophical problem of universals.

The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are considered not real.

The issue is that with nearly everything done under our current societal operating system of capitalism, which has inherent structural violence & abuse within all aspects of production, distribution and allocation, even application; as well as includes the planned intrinsic obsolescence, is done for the maximization of profit gains as the sole motivating factor of production.
The maximization of profit gains at any and all cost is the only reason for growth in this socio-economic system based upon constant competition and infinite growth on a finite planet, which also inherently only seemingly semi-benefits one percent of the human populace.

This global societal operating construct is now proven detrimental to the ecosystem, and our species. That is the problem. Not that the companies that have to manufacture and produce the stuff within this shit system in order to make money to survive in this shit system.
These corporations act economically also because the needs and requirements are there per necessitated actions of any sane folks focusing on human advancements no matter what the paradigm may be.
And even in this shit system where sickness and illness are exploited, and education is a really state indoctrination and/or a scam for debt slavery, these corporations must still function and operate.
Yes of course illness and addiction issues are even propagated to be exploited, this is an unfortunate Requirement of oppressive societal operating constructs.

But this being the fact of our largely blindly accepted and perpetuated “reality”, if these companies / corporations did not make these products we would not have the medical advances nor the ability to basically cure and fix a majority of human ails that have been a problem to us in the past or currently.
Science is a “good” thing, and the fact is that we Need this type of scientific method based research and development to be applied to the way we produce, distribute and allocate resources.
And not only for medical products, and resource productions and allocations, but for our continued evolution, thrivablity and even more, our continued Survivability.

It is just an an opinion, but it would seem that we as a species really need to stat utilizing basic common sense in operating functions, as we are the semi intelligent, self proclaimed dominant species on this planet.
The issue most seem to have, are with the systemic effects of oppressive global societal operating construct/s.
We have the immediate and universal ability to negate these systems of inherent oppression with even just something as simple as proper process application.

Please understand that the issue is Not solely that companies are trying to make money any way they can, as that is of course the socio-economic “reality” in this shit system we idiotically use to our own detriment, The issue is the Systems that We Allow to continue that allow for these nefarious abilities to even be a reality, that requires the sort of behaviours and actions that we all find detrimental to our species to flourish, and that the root causations of the negative systemic effects we are all trying to face separately, is capitalism and theocracy.

We have solutions readily available to begin to counteract, negate and even render obsolete a majority of societal ails and issues.
There is No “fix-all”, but there are a number processes which we can take, immediately and universally, that can begin to oppose some serious problems our species currently faces.
You can learn more about some of those solutions here:
We have solutions readily available to begin to counteract, negate and even render obsolete a majority of societal ails and issues.
There is No “fix-all”, but there are a number processes which we can take, immediately and universally, that can begin to oppose some serious problems our species currently faces.
You can learn more about some of those solutions here:
http://thinkandact.earth/apr-9-science/www.ThinkandAct.Earth

Failure to understand our own fallibilities has helped to create a crisis of confidence about the reproducibility of published results. The issue goes well beyond cases of fraud. Earlier this year, a large project that attempted to replicate 100 psychology studies managed to reproduce only slightly more than one-third. In 2012, researchers at biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, reported that they could replicate only 6 out of 53 landmark studies in oncology and haematology. And in 2009, statistician John Ioannidis, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California and his colleagues described how they had been able to fully reproduce only 2 out of 18 microarray-based gene-expression studies.

Although it is impossible to document how often researchers fool themselves in data analysis, says Ioannidis, findings of irreproducibility beg for an explanation. The study of 100 psychology papers is a case in point: if one assumes that the vast majority of the original researchers were honest and diligent, then a large proportion of the problems can be explained only by unconscious biases. “This is a great time for research on research,” he says. “The massive growth of science allows for a massive number of results, and a massive number of errors and biases to study. So there’s good reason to hope we can find better ways to deal with these problems.”
View the meta-assessment of bias in science study here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/14/3714

The term Human Fallibility is something that is usually loosely thrown around nowadays.
The fact about Human Fallibility, is that it is inherent to being human, as such we must be aware and take care to avoid such instances when and where we can.
That most people are not taught about this subject, i feel is one of the reasons why most people unknowingly enact a number of fallibilities daily.
When individuals cannot be prepared intellectually for societal operations in competitive society, this makes an individual susceptible to manipulation and coercion.
When the number of individuals that are ignorant grows in a society, the ability for tyrannical rulership can take hold, as has happened in the past.

Learn more about Human Fallibility here:
http://freeingsystems.com/hfs/

Critical thinking is often touted as a superior way to confront the issues one faces.

But what is critical thinking, really? How is it done?

Can anyone do it, or are Spock-like mental abilities required?

Critical thinking is sometimes talked about as a near-mystical skill that exercises untapped parts of your brain. The supposed benefits of critical thinking can sound equally fantastic. Unfortunately, the reality is a bit more mundane.

Critical thinking is simply a deliberative thought process. During the process, you use a set of critical thinking skills to consider an issue. At conclusion, you make a judgment about what to believe, or a decision about what to do.

There are a number of critical thinking skills. A core set includes the following:
-Suspending judgment to check the validity of a proposition or action
-Taking into consideration multiple perspectives
-Examining implications and consequences of a belief or action
-Using reason and evidence to resolve disagreements
-Re-evaluating a point of view in light of new information

Critical thinking is neither magical nor foolproof. Beyond these general critical-thinking skills, knowledge of the specific topic at hand plays an important role in the quality of thoughts you produce.

You won’t easily resolve issues about climate change, for example, without knowing the methods and procedures used by climatologists, as well as their wealth of past findings and theories. Critical thinking skills are no substitute for that specialized knowledge. But, they may well help you to develop a stronger understanding of the area.
*Critical Thinking Skills: What are They and How Do I Get Them? – Thinker Academy
http://thinkeracademy.com/critical-thinking-skills/

Here are a few more links about critical thinking skill, and how to grow them:
https://www.parentingscience.com/teaching-critical-thinking.html
https://www.wikihow.com/Teach-Critical-Thinking

In conclusion,
Knowledge gained via science is obtained in a way which largely avoids human fallibility.

Science is a tool used to make informed assumptions about the reality of the world we live in using observation and falsification to obtain knowledge. Science is also the collective knowledge of humans over thousands of years and currently presents the most up to date view of reality based on collective knowledge.

Science does not rely on anything but observation and allows itself to adapt and change with new information.
Any knowledge gained through science is built by questioning and controlling for human fallibility, which means that of all ways of gaining knowledge, science is the least biased method and avoid human fallibility as part of the process.
This does not mean that science is a perfect and objective way of gaining knowledge, but it is the most stringent and meticulous field in negating the human fallibility of individual / group researchers.

Science makes a point of being unbiased in the way it does
research. In experiments, neither the subject nor the experimenter knows what
changes have been made to the subject’s regimen.
This “double blind” and other steps are
deliberately taken to eliminate fallibility. Then, when a scientist’s experiment is
finished, it is published in a scientific journal, so that people with opposing
viewpoints can be heard. This is another step intended to make sure fallibility is eliminated.
Scientists are proud of the way they
investigate the world, with methods that encourage scientific detachment and
objectivity.

                        ————————————————–
                           Written by:
                           ~Quae Frei~