03-07-2026, 08:35 AM
(02-07-2026, 08:34 PM)eggyk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a big difference between trying to prove a theory is correct because you are convinced it is true, and trying to prove whether a theory is correct because you suspect it might be true.
The former assumes the end result before sufficient evidence and is highly susceptible to confirmation bias. The latter sets out to confirm or debunk their theory, open to a positive or negative result.
Yes, the first kind of scientist will generally seek out evidence that confirms the theory and skip experiments that he suspects would turn out against it. Which, given his conviction, is not wrong: he trusts that, if an experiment were to turn out negative, there would have to be an explanation that preserves the theory. Then doing that experiment would have been a waste of time.
But my point is that science is advanced more often by the the first kind of scientist than by the second kind. The latter will often pass on the theory because doing the necessary experiments (including those that are likely to refute it) it would require a lot of work. And he would probably give up after the first test that says "probably not" -- instead of looking for an explanation that would excuse that result, or just filing it into the "think later" folder and keep looking for the proof.
Thus the risk of confirmation bias is real, but it is just part of the "occupational hazards" of doing science.
All the best, --stolfi