To understand this question we must first define what is meant by “a neutral question”. The evident interpretation of “a neutral question” is one where the interrogator is completely devoted of interest in the answer. As such, he or she must accept the answer regardless of its nature as well as seek to avoid any kind of bias. Thus a “neutral question” can very well be defined as a dispassionate, open and objective question. It can almost never be misused and will almost always be helpful when seeking to attain knowledge. As Liz Lerman describes it, “a method for getting useful feedback on anything you make, from dance to dessert,” () a neutral question can often get you both what you want and what you need. The question asks is neutral questions …show more content…
Scientists often take pride in presenting themselves as uninterested discoverers of truth who merely give us the facts and tools we need to acquire knowledge. “Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be,” said Albert Einstein, yet scientists themselves are frequently forced to make difficult emotional decisions. So, what is the role of emotion in the natural sciences? Well, scientists are expected to share their findings regardless of their effect on society. Sometimes however, this can have severe repercussions. Scientists are human beings after all and are just as vulnerable to emotional bias as we are. Science is simply riddled with biased treatments of experimental results. An example of this is when Al Gore famously dismissed Dr. Roger Revelle´s “What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap,” by claiming that he had become crazy and senile before his death in 1991. Gore´s emotional bias towards Revelle led him to question his work without the slightest concrete scientific evidence. The natural sciences are indeed the frequent targets of emotionally biased claims and assumptions. Nevertheless, neutral questions are present in the world of science, namely under the name: hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation to a certain phenomenon; it does not seek to prove something but merely to guess its existence. Scientists do not try to prove this …show more content…
In the field of Political science, neutral questions can often determine important election results and help predict and create statistical data that politicians constantly rely on; perhaps even decide the fate of an entire nation. One example of this was the recent referendum to determine the independence of Scotland from Great Britain earlier this year. The question had to be perfectly phrased as to avoid any sort of unintended bias. This brings up another important knowledge question, to what extent can language be a direct cause of bias? It is true that wording a phrase a certain way can portray an undesired biased opinion, especially when asking for a vote or a poll. For instance, the original question proposed by the Scottish Prime minister, “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” was completely rejected by the Electoral Commission on grounds of bias. While it may not have been the Minister´s intentions, the question did seem to entice a more favorable “yes” answer. This is the exact opposite of a neutral question. In contrast, the adopted question for the referendum: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” is an appropriate neutral question that clearly does not favor one answer more than another. However it can also be argued that in the field of psychology, neutral questions do not exist. The reason for this is that
The Zundel vs. Citron case explains bias as, “a state of mind that is in some way predisposed to a particular result or that is closed with regard to particular issues,” (Zundel vs. Citron). Due to the importance that bias can play in a decision, the courts have created a legal test to determine if it exists in any given situation. The test is, “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through –
When this finding infringes on someone’s lifestyle or corporate interests, the reaction to the discovery becomes unfavorable. A contributing factor to the rejection of scientific findings is directly related to political affiliation. Since the 1970s, conservatives have experienced a continuous decay of trust in the scientific community. By 2010, the contrasting trust in the scientific community has become more evident, with liberals retaining more trust in them and conservatives reducing theirs. Climate science has contributed greatly to this conflict.
Both in fiction and in real life a certain breed of scientists has decided to ignore the scientific method and chase dreams of fame. With that fame, they hope to dig deep into our pockets and reap the benefits of their poor workmanship. It is most evident from the examples given that these scientists, who have seemingly reversed scientific evolution, no longer care for true science and the scientific method, but rather are interested in personal glory.
This perception results from a combination of personal experience and social integration. Kurtz argues that there are “two kinds of values within human experience [...] values rooted in unexamined feelings, faith, custom, or authority [...] and values that are influenced by cognition and informed by rational inquiry” (73). He reveals that one can base his values on either intangible beliefs, or on logical exploration, and suggests that the latter one is more correct. However, what is right or wrong is a matter of cultural interpretation, and what is wise today may not be wise tomorrow. Subsequently, it is the way we use scientific findings that matters more than what those findings actually are. In the cloning example, the only reason safety was considered an issue is because of the belief that we should not harm a human, given that we perceive our lives to be special. Even so, Galileo was persecuted and Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for suggesting that the earth goes round the sun and not vice versa. This is common knowledge now, having had our notions evolve with science, but it does not change the way the two of them, along with many others, were treated for going against the doctrine of their time. This proves that science does influence the way we factually look at things (eventually) but that we still use it according to our deeply rooted beliefs, creating divisions and tensions amongst our own
Philosophical context: To discuss this question I will use “Values and Objectivity” by Helen Longino along with actual studies involving scientific objectivity. In Longino’s work, she sets up the avenues for criticism of scientific work and explains why they are important.
This discussion focuses on two issues: the relationship between evidence and hypotheses; and, the role of "contextual" values in inquiry. Longino contrasts contextual values with constitutive values. The latter, the "values generated from an understanding of the goals of scientific inquiry," "are the source of the rules determining what constitutes acceptable scientific practice or scientific method" (L1990, 4). That these values influence inquiry is not a problem. But the former, "personal, social, and cultural values," are thought to threaten the integrity of scientific inquiry (L1990, 4-5).
This can take a turn for the worse: if scientists have to have their work follow what politics, religions, and people believe, we might limit what science stands for. Religion and politics should never have control over science, instead they should use science to help explain their own goals. Science should be used as a way to challenge old beliefs and help clear out fact from fiction. At the same time though, science should challenge itself so it can stay true to its main point of challenging old dogmas, as Carl Sagan said in his article.
The Chernobyl meltdown was one the biggest meltdowns of the decade, the implications of Chernobyl didn’t just resonate in Russia, but the uranium contamination was found all across Europe. Sheep farmers from North Cumbria were affected by the radiation contamination. After the contamination, scientists came to help the farmers who were affected. Our presentation on the article also discussed the broader implications for the public understanding of science and how the deficit model failed in the article. The deficit model was used to discuss the problems with science and the lay people. The public’s negative attitude towards science is because of their ignorance towards it and the remedy was to dumb down the information to the lay people. This article discusses how both science and the lay people were misunderstanding each other. This was through miscommunication and standard view of the public understanding of science which lead to people to initially trust everything the scientists would say.
Finally, this article touches upon inappropriate versus appropriate pathos in scientific argument. Novak is considered too invested in bringing back the passenger pigeon, while his most other scientists involved in the field do not feel the same level of attachment. Interestedness is often considered bias, but in regards to “de-extinction”, a field that is so closely related to ethics and morals, is it dangerous to be biased on behalf of bring back animals mankind contributed to destroying? One contrasting argument that none of the scientists in this article touched upon is the desire to completely change the scientific community’s direction concerning the issue of extinction to focus its energy and resources onto preventing the extinction of species struggling to survive today.
As time has progressed, a divide has been created between scientists and those who strongly...
Bias is a tendency, inclination, or outlook to present a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the
“The views of people with strong opinions should be given equal prominence to those with compelling scientific evidence”. Discuss with reference to media coverage of a scientific controversy.
Cole, K. C., and Sue Giddings. "Is There Such a Thing as Scientific Objectivity?" DISCOVER Sept. 1985: 76-78. Web.
Firstly, it is possible for scientists to avoid using emotive language. It is not as necessary in this area of knowledge as compared to human sciences and the arts. There are not many scenarios where that type of diction is needed to communicate information. For example, a scientist writing a research paper on his or her experiments should use referential language.