Biases and Mindset Limit Scientific Discovery

Scientists stumble upon discoveries that they tend to label as ‘anomalies,’ since the results of their research do not line up with theories that are widely accepted as truth. The inconsistencies between data and theory often lead scientists to disprove their hypothesis or accept that their findings are a singular exception to that theory. These scientists that exhibit a fixed mindset on theories of science contribute to the limits of scientific discovery. Scientific discovery is limited to the ability of the scientist to be unbiased and open-minded to the results of the experiment.

If the researcher is hyper fixated on proving the acceptance of the hypothesis, consciously or unconsciously, that scientist may leverage the data from research to prove that theory as truth. According to Christie Aschwanden in the article “Science Isn’t Broken,” scientists often determine specific experimental controls based off their own biases that lead to p-hacking; these scientists are not necessarily “committing fraud, nor are they intending to. They’re just falling prey to human biases that lead them to tip the scales and set up studies to produce false results.” Even though certain biases contribute to the production of biased experimental conclusions, science itself is not completely untrustworthy.

The truth often reveals itself through more quality and unbiased research. Aschwanden states in the article that “a single analysis is not sufficient to find a definitive answer. Every result is a temporary truth, one that’s subject to change when someone else comes along to build, test, and analyze anew.” Once more data accumulates and more studies have been performed, scientists can then analyze the results in order to determine any consistencies between the research. One experiment is not completely unbiased. It takes multiple experiments with a multitude of scientists to accept the same hypothesis to remove the effect individual biases have on research.   

The other limit to scientific discovery besides biases is a scientist’s ability to keep an open mind while researching. Often times, scientists aim to determine a theory that explains all that is in nature. While a theory like this would benefit humanity greatly, it is unfeasible that one individual can determine this singular theory. It is with the combination of multiple theories that scientists can even begin to understand nature. The scientists that aim to determine this singular theory that explains all science have a fixed mindset on the limits of scientific discovery. According to Patrick Collision and Michael Nielsen in their article “Science is Getting Less Bang for Its Buck,” new phenomena can always be discovered, answering new, relevant scientific questions. Collision and Nielsen argue that scientific discovery is “an endless frontier.” With the rise of technological innovation, new questions arise, opening the door for more scientific research. 

In 1939, J. Robert Oppenheimer and his student published a paper on blackholes. Oppenheimer had tunnel vision where he was completely focused on fundamental physics and utilizing it to explain reality. He did not pursue any more research into blackholes because he determined that they were anomalies and did not contribute to his fundamental physics research. Modern day research has suggested that there is a link between blackhole and fundamental physics that Oppenheimer was so fixated on. If he had possessed a more open mind to blackholes and the ‘anomaly’ that it was, he may have been able to link the two. In the essay “Fundamentalitis,” the author Ash Jogalekar argues that “nature is too clever to be constrained into narrow bins, and sometimes it is only by poking around in the most applied parts of science that one can see the gleam of fundamental principles.” If scientists possess a more open mind when looking at anomalies, they may find that those are not anomalies but a foundation for new scientific discovery. The findings may also loop back to fundamental science and provide a deeper understanding of the theories of nature.

Scientific truth is temporary. Current theories are provisional until more research is performed to prove or disprove the theories. Scientific research is limited by possession of individual biases and possession of a fixed mindset.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Molecules, Models, and Magic: The Exciting World of Computational Chemistry

Vrinda Modi I often spend time in a little cubicle in McLean in the freezing corporate cold wrapped in a blanket in the Hoboken summers sipping on free coffee from the office above. It almost always tastes like chalk, but the routine is so embedded in me. Hence, this is the perfect opportunity to talk a little more about my research in computational chemistry here at Stevens and the advances I expect in the next few years. This field excites me because it bridges my interest in chemistry with modern computing techniques, a powerful tool for advancing our understanding of chemical reactions and molecular interactions. This means we are a dry lab – running simulations on computers. No chemicals, no PPE, just models and algorithms. But why does computational chemistry exist in the first place, especially when chemistry is so rooted in physical matter? The answer is efficiency. Modeling molecules on a computer saves us from ordering chemicals, waiting for deliveries (a delay in chemistry t...
Read more

Scaling the Potential of Vertical Farming Going into 2025 and Beyond

Image
  Matthew P Kearney Scaling the Potential of Vertical Farming Going into 2025 and Beyond      Vertical farming may seem like something out of a futuristic movie, but they are very real in today’s agricultural industry. Vertical farming may promote a stronger relationship between urbanization and sustainable crop production. Based on recent innovations across agriculture and technology, vertical farming has the potential to revolutionize our current farming system. Through the development of vertical farming-based production lines, cities and otherwise unfarmable areas can be provided with fresh, local, and pesticide-free produce. Vertical farming and other adaptations of agriculture are not new ideas, but instead a historic and human process.      These technologies are ready to meaningfully address global food security through the technological and computational advancements in agriculture. Vertical farming has a promising future, which becomes a case...
Read more

Knot Your Average Problem: How do Tongue Ties Impact Oral Myofunctional Health?

Image
  Hadia Hussain      Knot Your Average Problem: How do Tongue Ties Impact Oral Myofunctional Health? Sitting in the nursery of the dental office where I worked, I reviewed Baby V’s medical history and reports from the Emergency Department at Jersey City Medical Center. I found it odd that, despite multiple visits and clear signs of malnutrition, no physician had been able to diagnose the cause. Baby V, at a low weight of 12 pounds was struggling with difficulty nursing and bottle feeding, excessive gassiness, colic, clicking sounds when feeding, milk dribbling out of the mouth, and mouth breathing—but doctors had dismissed these signs, labeling him as "healthy."  It didn’t make sense as his low weight raised serious concerns.  According to Pediatric specialists Jenny Olson, DNP, and Sarha DeVrieze, ARNP, at the UnityPoint Clinic, a 9-month-old baby boy should weigh anywhere in between the range of 17 to 25 pounds. Baby V's situation was clearly a ...
Read more