Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T14:15:05.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Bias in Scientific Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Nancy E. Shaffer
Nancy E. Shaffer*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Methodological objectivism is a conception of bias which obscures the contingent and limited nature of methodological principles behind the guise of fixed a priori standards. I suggest as an alternative a more flexible view of the operation of bias which I call the attribution model. The attribution model makes explicit the working principles of both parties to an actual charge of bias. It enables those involved to identify the issues in dispute between them, and is the basis for an approach to handling charges of bias within the process of discussion and negotiation which characterizes normal scientific decision-making.

Type
Methodology Naturalized and Contextualized
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 63 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1996. , 1996 , pp. S89 - S97
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Department of Philosophy, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.

References

Antony, L. (1993), “Quine as Feminist: The Radical Import of Naturalized Epistemology”, in Antony, L. and Witt, C. (eds.), A Mind of One's Own: Feminist Essays on Reason and Objectivity. Boulder: Westview, pp. 185–225.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Change”, Psychological Review 84: 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1962), Logical Foundations of Probability, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cervone, D. and Williams, S. (1992), “Social Cognitive Theory and Personality”, in Caprara, G-V. and Van Heck, G. L. (eds.), Modern Personality Psychology: Critical Reviews and New Directions. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 200–252.Google Scholar
Code, L. (1989), “The Impact of Feminism on Epistemology”, APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 88: 25–29.Google Scholar
Comer, D. (1993), “Sociopolitical Effects on Personality Research”, American Psychologist 48: 1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, M. (1991), Theory and Experiment in Molecular Population Genetics, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. (1954), The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J. (1982), “Belief, Bias and Ideology”, in Hollis, S. and Lukes, S. (eds.), Rationality and Relativism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 123–148.Google Scholar
Foley, R. (1988), “Some Different Conceptions of Rationality”, in McMullin, E. (ed.), Construction and Constraint: The Shaping of Scientific Rationality. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 123–152.Google Scholar
Galison, P. (1987), How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galison, P. and Stump, D. (1995), Disunity and Contextualism: New Directions in the Philosophy of Science Studies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Garver, E. (1988), “Point of View, Bias, and Insight”, Journal of Thought 23: 139–155.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G.; Swijtink, Z.; Porter, T.; Daston, L.; Beatty, J.; and Kruger, L. (1989), The Empire of Chance: How Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1993a), “The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits”, American Psychologist 48: 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1993b), “Author's Reactions to the Six Comments”, American Psychologist 48: 1303–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, S. (1986), The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jaggar, A. (1983), Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld.Google Scholar
Kroger, R. and Wood, L. (1993), “Reification, ‘Faking,‘ and the Big Five”, American Psychologist 48: 1297–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1963), “The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research”, in Crombie, A. C. (ed.), Scientific Change. New York: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., pp. 347–369.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1977), “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice”, The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 320–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. (1990), Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. (1993), “Subjects, Power, and Knowledge: Description and Prescription in Feminist Philosophies of Science”, in Alcoff, L. and Potter, E. (eds.), Feminist Epistemologies. New York: Routledge, pp. 101–120.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1983), “Values in Science”, PSA 1982, Vol. 2: 3–28. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1968), Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. (1993), “Epistemological Communities”, in Alcoff, L. and Potter, E. (eds.), Feminist Epistemologies. New York: Routledge, pp. 121–160.Google Scholar
Paul, R. and Rudinow, J. (1988), “Bias, Relativism, and Critical Thinking”, Journal of Thought 23: 125–138.Google Scholar
Porter, T. (1994), “Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis”, in Megill, A. (ed.), Rethinking Objectivity. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 197–237.Google Scholar
Potter, E. (1993), “Gender and Epistemic Negotiation”, in Alcoff, L. and Potter, E. (eds.), Feminist Epistemologies. New York: Routledge, pp. 161–186.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1966), “The Scope and Language of Science”, The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1966), The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. (1984), “Biology and Ideology: The Interpretation of Science and Values”, Philosophy of Science 51: 396–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scriven, M. (1976), Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Shadel, W. and Cervone, D. (1993), “The Big Five Versus Nobody?”, American Psychologist 48: 1300–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, N. (1996), Understanding Bias in Scientific Practice, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (1993), Philosophy of Biology. San Francisco: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Swijtink, Z. (1987), “The Objectification of Observation: Measurement and Statistical Methods in the Nineteenth Century, in Kruger, L. et al. (eds.), The Probabilistic Revolution, Vol. I: Ideas in History, pp. 261–285.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1982), “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases”, in Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1980), “Reductionistic Research Strategies and their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy”, in Nickles, T. (ed.), Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. New York: D. Reidel Publishing Co., pp. 213–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1987), “False Models as Means to Truer Theories”, in Nitecki, M.H. and Hoffman, A. (eds.), Neutral Models in Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–55.Google Scholar