zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
I came across the ideas of underdetermination and confounding variables recently, and decided to dig into them a little further. Found this article, which I think makes some very good points about the manner in which reviews of studies are conducted, how values of the reviewers can create incommensurabilities, and the fact that there may exist a set of standards that can help increase objectivity of reviews, and decrease value driven bias.
Project MUSE - Underdetermination and Incommensurability in Contemporary Epidemiology
I would like to point out that the author revealed his own bias in scrutinizing the methodology and bias of a review that causally infered a connection between induced abortions and breast cancer while presenting information about a review that concluded no link between the two without the added scrutiny.
In a nutshell, since people conduct studies, and people review studies, and people critique reviews, and people have different values which inform their causal inferences, and since it is very difficult to identify and isolate confounding variables, it is very likely that two different reviewers can arrive at different conclusions based on the same evidence.
I would like to add my own editorial note, that you can also take the inverse of this situation, and start with the conclusions of a reviewer, look at the evidence they reviewed, and determine, to some degree, the values and biases of the reviewer. In the cases where the bias and values are not obvious, either you share the values and biases and are blind to them (a manifestation of confirmation bias), or the conclusions may have a high degree of objectivity. Hard to say which it is though, which brings me back to how unlikely it is for humans to ever grasp objective reality, and how absurd the human condition truly is.
Project MUSE - Underdetermination and Incommensurability in Contemporary Epidemiology
I would like to point out that the author revealed his own bias in scrutinizing the methodology and bias of a review that causally infered a connection between induced abortions and breast cancer while presenting information about a review that concluded no link between the two without the added scrutiny.
In a nutshell, since people conduct studies, and people review studies, and people critique reviews, and people have different values which inform their causal inferences, and since it is very difficult to identify and isolate confounding variables, it is very likely that two different reviewers can arrive at different conclusions based on the same evidence.
I would like to add my own editorial note, that you can also take the inverse of this situation, and start with the conclusions of a reviewer, look at the evidence they reviewed, and determine, to some degree, the values and biases of the reviewer. In the cases where the bias and values are not obvious, either you share the values and biases and are blind to them (a manifestation of confirmation bias), or the conclusions may have a high degree of objectivity. Hard to say which it is though, which brings me back to how unlikely it is for humans to ever grasp objective reality, and how absurd the human condition truly is.
