Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 8:20 am
That's correct I suppose, but I feel it isn't as bad as some say it is.
The entire field of medical science was only capable of making meaningful advancements towards finding consistently effective treatments after they figured out techniques to fight against confirmation bias. I think it's a pretty big deal.
I'm not aware of any instances of confirmation bias in medical research although I can see how that may happen. What I mean to say is real steaks are so much better than imagined steaks.
Right, you're not aware of any because they figured out techniques to fight against it. You're not aware of it because those techniques work.
Techniques like double blind studies, for example.
Prior to these techniques, doctors would do stuff like cook up a batch of albino bone broth to cure your flu, and if you got better they'd put it in the old memory bank as a win for albino broth, and if you died they'd say "ah he was way too old or unhealthy already, nothing could have saved him". There was no statistics, there was no comparison against placebo, there was no blind or double blind studies, just a single doctor choosing how to interpret his own observations, and often choosing them in a way that we would now call "confirmation bias".
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 8:37 am
The entire field of medical science was only capable of making meaningful advancements towards finding consistently effective treatments after they figured out techniques to fight against confirmation bias. I think it's a pretty big deal.
I'm not aware of any instances of confirmation bias in medical research although I can see how that may happen. What I mean to say is real steaks are so much better than imagined steaks.
Right, you're not aware of any because they figured out techniques to fight against it. You're not aware of it because those techniques work.
Techniques like double blind studies, for example.
Prior to these techniques, doctors would do stuff like cook up a batch of albino bone broth to cure your flu, and if you got better they'd put it in the old memory bank as a win for albino broth, and if you died they'd say "ah he was way too old or unhealthy already, nothing could have saved him". There was no statistics, there was no comparison against placebo, there was no blind or double blind studies, just a single doctor choosing how to interpret his own observations, and often choosing them in a way that we would now call "confirmation bias".
Muchas gracias for the info. I completely forgot about placebos. Anyway, enough about confirmation biases - everyone seems so certain of what it is and how it can mess things up when it comes to philosophizing. I'll tag along for the ride.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 9:18 am
It takes a fantastic amount of confidence to say "enough about confirmation biases" in a thread titled "confirmation bias".
mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:33 pmHaving skimmed portions of your discussion with Iwp, seems like neither of you have much understanding of the underlying causes of CB or even what CB actually is and is not. Wouldn't it make sense to first gain a solid understanding of CB before trying to apply it to yourself? With that in mind, what's on your list of characteristics that make one most prone to CB?
lol
Excellent vague negative judgment! And not a stray bit of substance to improve things. Clever.
Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 2:17 am
Good job OP. All of us need this kinda reminder every now and then to ensure our thinking stays sharp. Nevertheless, I can't shake off the feeling that we've barely scratched the surface of confirmation bias.
But this is as SIMPLE as while you are HOLDING a BELIEF or an ASSUMPTION that some 'thing' is true, then you will look for, even unconsciously, and "find" 'things' that confirm the BELIEF or ASSUMPTION.
This is just part of the process of the 'belief-system' and how it works.
That's correct I suppose, but I feel it isn't as bad as some say it is.
It is only 'bad' in the sense that while one is like that they are NOT OPEN to learning what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.
But this is as SIMPLE as while you are HOLDING a BELIEF or an ASSUMPTION that some 'thing' is true, then you will look for, even unconsciously, and "find" 'things' that confirm the BELIEF or ASSUMPTION.
This is just part of the process of the 'belief-system' and how it works.
That's correct I suppose, but I feel it isn't as bad as some say it is.
It is only 'bad' in the sense that while one is like that they are NOT OPEN to learning what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.
I learnt it from