On The Myth That Scientists Are Objective

You can’t shake a stick these days without hitting a scientist claiming that she or he would not possibly let their biases influence their judgment.  Scientists say this sort of thing all the time.  They act insulted when anyone suggests that they might be interpreting their data through a political lens – that they might be seeing what they want to see.  “We wouldn’t do that,” they say indignantly, “for crying out loud – we’re scientists!”

In case you think I’m making this up, I’ll give the example that inspired me to write this piece.  But I’m not picking on the scientist in question – he may actually be truly unbiased, or misquoted, or what-have-you. So if you are a big fan of Dr. John Vucetich, please save your hate mail – I’m only using this quote as an extant example of something that I do see for real all the time.  In the article, Vucetich took issue with his being removed from a panel review on grounds that he had already politically supported – in writing – one particular side of the debate on which the review was supposed to decide.  I’ll quote from the paper (August 14, Missoulian):

“Vucetich, a biologist and wolf specialist, said it was ‘absolutely wrong’ to disqualify an expert from a peer review team because of previous statements about a proposed policy. Any competent scientist will approach such an assignment with an open mind and be willing to alter his or her opinion if new information justifies it, he said.”

Do you see what’s happening here?  If you don’t yet see it, then re-read that bit carefully, because it reflects a larger attitude that I see all the time in the scientific circles I travel in.  If Dr. Vucetich had said it was “absolutely wrong because all sides of a debate should be represented” – I would have been all for it.  That’s the real reason for including people with obvious strong biases – dialecticism, that is, getting to the truth by arguing evidence from opposing viewpoints.

But that’s not what he said at all.  What he said was rather: It was absolutely wrong because he would not be biased because he is a competent scientist. He didn’t claim that his biases might be useful, which is true; he claimed that he didn’t have them, which is ludicrous. That attitude reflects some kind of bizarre indignation that anyone would question whether or not a scientist would be objective; even if they have a clear political bone to pick with a project.  Never mind that Dr. Vucetich had signed a petition that sided with one side of this debate – he’s a scientist. He waves that magic word and hopes that no one notices that he just claimed to have special powers.

In no other walk of life would we tolerate such strange claims.  Imagine that I reported to you that I was standing near the Whitefish Jesus statue, and I had a very strong sensation that it wanted to tell me to never watch Pat Robertson again. No one would think it odd for you to ask the question: Well, maybe it’s possible, since you have publicly stated you do not like Pat Robertson – maybe your interpretation is a bit biased?  Maybe you are hearing what you want to hear?  And wouldn’t you think it would be a touch arrogant if I responded: Well, for crying out loud, I’m a Christian! And we’re not biased! How can you question my integrity!
So they can easily opt for the course during any time of https://unica-web.com/ENGLISH/2014/UNICA2016-proposals.html buy viagra the day. However, at this juncture, they live on the buy cheap cialis edge of the financial abyss, recklessly spending all they have, investing little or nothing. To obtain your justice done and accomplish get viagra in canada the reimbursement, you are especially recommended to make use of a qualified and well-informed Propecia lawyer. Luckily, with the spread of natural treatment, more and more people have realized that there is no average time to ejaculate. tadalafil tablets
I hate to offer the world’s most obvious newsflash, but – despite appearances – scientists actually are people.  And people have biases – all of them.  Research suggests that the people who are the most dangerous are the ones who think they are unbiased; they are dangerous because the only tried-and-true way to correct a bias is to be aware of it.  The person who blithely says “I’m not biased!  Stop insulting me” is certainly going to be biased; their bias will dominate their lives and the lives around them; all because they are too closed-minded to recognize it.

So when scientists say this sort of thing, I’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad.  I’m not questioning Dr. Vucetich’s integrity by thinking that maybe he should not be on a panel that is supposed to objectively decide about an issue on which he has publicly already taken sides; I’m only including him in the human race.  He may do a perfectly fine job; he may well overcome his biases; he may well be willing to change his mind, as he suggests.  But as a thinking citizen, I’m allowed to question the motives and biases of scientists the way any reasonable and skeptical person should – and I grow awfully weary of them responding as if the question is insulting because they are scientists.

Now you may wonder about the purpose of this discussion on an apologetics blog.  If you do, that tells me you are a new reader (what is this purpose thing I keep hearing about?).  And yet, in this case I do have a quasi-religious goal, and that is this.  Often these scientists claim – and they are often treated – like they have a higher authority than they do.  And since many of them – at least many of the ones our un-representative anti-religious media quotes (more on this in a later post) – are anti-religious, they practically act like, because they are the unbiased scientists, they can simply declare religion to be false by fiat.  And I find that sort of thing silly and unintellectual.  Science is a glorious thing; scientists in my experience are mostly good people; but they are people nonetheless.  The lens they look with is just as colored as anyone’s with their own expectations.  I know first-hand that all data is open to interpretation and can be intentionally or unintentionally twisted to meet such expectations.

There is an irony here that is not to be overlooked.  Scientists are almost acting like the new priests of our generation – claiming a kind of special authority.  Well, I don’t grant priests or pastors special authority, and I’m devoutly religious – so I’m certainly not going to grant scientists that authority, even though I’m a big believer in science.  It was during the eras where religious leadership was granted such authority that it was at its worst.  Science, too, will be at its worst – it will be least likely to get to anything like objective truth – if it believes it is immune to bias.

So: I’m encouraging you, my readers, to help save both society and science.  And all you have to do to save it is this: When you see comments like this in the paper or hear them in public discourse, just – roll your eyes.