Sentences with phrase «scientists as biased»

«Scientific advocacy, environmental interest groups, and climate change: are climate skeptic portrayals of climate scientists as biased accurate?.»

While earlier studies had linked early - stage cancers and lower sperm counts in animals to low BPA doses, no study had ever linked exposure to female reproductive diseases.Not surprisingly, the plastics industry balked at the findings, labeling the scientists as biased and alarmist; they also rejected the BPA link to reproductive diseases as unfounded and based on uncertain science.

Not exact matches

Scientists call recall bias «availability heuristic» (which is a mouthful, and why I refer to it as recall bias).

There is no such thing as a creation scientist, because the premise and bias preclude use of the scientific method.

Even though new technological infrastructures or individual tools rarely, if ever, change the world in one blow or cause particular events, they still have implications, biases, long - term implications, like the ones discussed by careful, deep thinkers of long - term change like Harold Innis and Elizabeth Eisenstein and more immediate ones for how we live our lives, as studied by social scientists willing to let the chips fall as they may.

And aside from any real prejudice, the historical record of medicine as a male - dominated profession can drive women physicians and physician - scientists to perceive bias, push themselves too hard — and burn out much earlier than their male colleagues, or sacrifice their careers in part or entirely.

«Whilst the possibility of this is extremely low, possibly even zero, as scientists it's important that we avoid complacency and examine observations and evidence without bias.»

So I did a survey of 140 movies that depict scientists, just picked them out of databases without any bias, and I judged whether they were depicting scientists, portraying scientists as heroes or villains and the ratio was six to one, heroes over villains and even the villains were not really villainous, they were not evil.

But JNRBM meets two important needs in science reporting: the need to combat the positive spin known as publication bias and the need to make other scientists feel better about themselves.

You might think it's time to trot out the old cliché that scientists are human after all, subject to the same emotions and biases as the kid who accused me of calculating my curriculum.

But while biased scientists are inevitable, biased results are not, as illustrated by Morton (biased) and his data (unbiased, as far as we can tell).

And Gould was certainly right that all scientists, as humans, have some sort of bias.

But the tide has been turning, as more women have entered science and more scientists of both sexes seek to remove bias from their work.

Scientists are aware of their biases, and use techniques such as blind trials to minimise them, but the pressure to get things done faster leads to some people skimping on experimental design, said Dr Head.

Such perceptual biases (technically known as pareidolia) can be misleading, but for planetary scientists they are also quite useful.

Barring that expensive and time - consuming effort, there are mathematical tests that scientists can perform to determine if the results from a set of studies might be the result of questionable research practices such as publication bias or P - hacking — mining data to uncover significant differences.

And on Twitter, an analysis by University of Southern California computer scientists found that nearly 20 percent of election - related tweets came from bots, computer programs posing as real people and often spouting biased or fake news.

As scientists, we pride ourselves on our ability to rise above this tendency and dispassionately analyze data, free from any subjective bias.

Research suggests that a great many people assess evidence not as scientists are trained to do, but rather in an emotion - biased manner that is strongly influenced by the beliefs of their cultural cohort.

Today, teams have largely embraced their engineers, although some lingering biases persist: Canupp says some teams think of their scientists as a «necessary evil.»

This behavior, often described as «throwing good money after bad», is driven by what behavioral scientists call the «sunk - cost bias»» What has been spent is spent.

In my 40 years as a scientist, I have certainly seen some of my colleagues, acting in their role as normal human beings, occasionally get carried away in their enthusiasm and let nons - cientific biases affect the way they represent their scientific judgment to the public.

There are far worse things being done by «scientists» with an agenda, already biased opinions that leapfrog onto anything they see as backing up their psychoses or appeasing their right - wing think - tank supporters.

I'm no rocket scientist, but it does raise more questions as to the data intake, whether it's complete or incomplete, and whether its» source is bias or unbias.

[Response: Do you think that scientists are not well aware of the possibility of confirmation bias or have no sense of «human nature» as you call it?

And as long as businessmen with a vested interest (Exxon / Mobil, Peabody Coal, power companies), and economists with a political bias (CEI, Heartland, Cato, Wall Street), and lawyers (Bachmann, Cornyn, Cantor) believe that they know more about global warming than climate scientists, nothing will get done to combat global warming.

These other factors include the economy, confusion over colder weather and other perceptual biases, general distrust of government, climate policies such as cap and trade that are not easily sold as effective or in line with public values, the absence of White House leadership on the issue, institutional barriers in Congress and at the international level, and the continued communication and policy missteps of some scientists and environmental advocates.

In light of these many complex factors, for scientists to angrily and emotionally focus on climate skeptics as the primary source of societal inaction is a major distraction and it reflects their own perceptual biases.

When scientists and advocates, motivated by these biased perceptions, take action by responding with tit - for - tat attacks on climate skeptics, it takes energy and effort away from offering a positive message and engagement campaign that builds public support for climate action and instead feeds a downward spiral of «war» and conflict rhetoric that appears as just more ideological rancor to the wider public.

I hope not to ever get so biased as to misread what alarmist scientists say and start attacking them personally based on my own mistake.

He mentions separating the science from the scientists and their human foibles such as ego and bias.

At the end of the day, scientists are people just like anyone else, and just as susceptible to irrationality and bias.

Slander from scientists should be considered as a «tell» for bias — although it shouldn't be considered as sufficient for proof.

If you are sceptical (as all scientists should be), you have to be sceptical both ways, and not give the things that support your biases a free pass.

For this purpose, we instructed them to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with statements such as «the scientists who did the study were biased,» «computer models like those relied on in the study are not a reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate,» and «more studies must be done before policymakers rely on the findings» of the study etc..

The problem is, many climate scientists are so biased, that what they produce is actually advocacy masquerading as science.

But I see this as a non-issue: to a scientist, bias has a specific meaning, markedly different from everyday use.

If we consider a scientist simply as a person who understands and practices the scientific method, acknowledging that just like all people they possess their own biases.

Ottawa town hall attendee, Rod Packwood, a PhD in physics and retired senior research scientist at Natural Resources Canada, said: «The government is clearly biasing the town halls in such a way as to generate supposed public support for the point of view they hold dear.

As a professional auditor, I remain puzzled how company directors can face prosecution for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct by knowingly releasing reports to the market place that are seriously flawed if not fraudulent... yet the climate change charlatans (the IPCC and its assisting cabal of snake - oil salesmen scientists) can issue reports of greater consequence to the world, which are knowingly biased and flawed, and contain blatant errors and anomalies, but they still remain «untouchables»!

For example, if you agree that people of all ideological and cultural and political stripes are vulnerable to identity - oriented «motivated - reasoning,» then what do you think about articles that finger point about about the biases among «liberal» scientists even as the political orientation of the author is dismissed as a potentially relevant factor?

They further described Lomborg's text as having «misrepresented the actual positions of environmentalists and scientists» with an analysis that was «marred by invalidating errors that include a narrow, biased reading of the literature, an inadequate understanding of the science, and quotations taken out of context.»

No - one here asked you to claim, based on your 46 years of experience as an aeronautical engineer, that you knew better than the actual scientists how to interpret their data so that it wasn't biased or «fraudulent.»

As a scientist, Judith, you don't have to agree that your activity around climate change amounts to irresponsible advocacy, or even advocacy of any sort, but as a scientist it does seem that you have an obligation to address counterarguments to your position in a manner that at least attempts to control for you biaseAs a scientist, Judith, you don't have to agree that your activity around climate change amounts to irresponsible advocacy, or even advocacy of any sort, but as a scientist it does seem that you have an obligation to address counterarguments to your position in a manner that at least attempts to control for you biaseas a scientist it does seem that you have an obligation to address counterarguments to your position in a manner that at least attempts to control for you biases.

My study on CAGW initially focused on a very specific aspect — data presentation bias / fraud in the climate data as presented by climate scientists to the public, the media and the policy makers.

I do not view a great scientist as being as biased and illogical as Hansen.

Once things have settled, I suppose that because such an investigation can be provoked, scientist will be much more careful not to give way to biased research, and that again could happen to be of great relief to ordinary people who might have their life negatively influenced because of bad science adopted by policymakers as the «truth».

Also, you need to remember the context, which is often lost in dealing with you; If your position is that 600 some scientists is a lot, and a lot of scientists are likely to be right, mine is that 600 is actually not very many, and further this group of 600 sending some message, may simply be a product of sample bias and not representative of the climate science community as a whole.

The «balance as bias» thesis from the paper remains frequently cited today when bloggers, scientists, and others assert that false balance remains a widespread problem, even among mainstream media.

Above all, these supposed modeling experts and climate scientists need to terminate their biases and their evangelism of political agendas that seek to slash fossil fuel use, «transform» our energy and economic systems, reduce our standards of living, and «permit» African and other impoverished nations to enter the modern era only in a «sustainable manner,» as callous elitists often insist.