Obviously confirmation bias exists, but to what extent?
How could it be any other way? Researchers are forced to specialize. Once they commit to a specialty they need to make sure it stays relevant lest they be out of work or have to start over in a new field. They simply cannot afford to say anything that undermines their specialty or their career prospects.
Let's put it another way: if scientists work for a oil company or a drug company most people will assume, without proof, that any science produced by these scientists is biased. I am saying that the same thing is true for every scientist but it can be more difficult to figure out how the incentives in their field create their bias.
If you are going to insist on accepting all science at face value unless someone provides "proof" of bias then I can dig out any number of studies by tobacco companies which you have to accept at face value unless you can *prove* bias. Is that the standard you really want to set? Or are you going to be a hypocrite and argue proof of bias is only required when you decide it is necessary?
Home
Contact
Login
Register