Bias Widening, Part 2 – Bias and Discovery
Bias and discovery
Bias toward one set of ideas and against another can either
keep knowledge inert—or lead to testing those beliefs to reveal new, contrary
ones that work better to define and solve problems. Steven Johnson’s social
history of ideas (Where Good Ideas Come From, 2010) gives the example of
Joseph Priestley’s discovery that plants expel the oxygen that supports earth’s
atmosphere. The common scientific wisdom until the late 1700s was that
without oxygen, plants would die.
But in a simple bell jar experiment, they proved this bias
wrong by thriving. This proof was part of Priestley’s exploration of the
nature of air itself. He is credited for isolating oxygen as an element,
in effect “discovering” oxygen.
Idea bias
Reversing a fundamental bias has been basic to breakthrough
paradigm shifts, described by Thomas Kuhn in The Nature of Scientific
Revolutions as the recognition of data anomalies as clues that could
reveal mistaken—or merely limited—idea bias. The move from earth-centered
to the sun-centered universe, Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the discovery
of the genetic code by DNA illustrate the ability of scientists to overcome and
surpass accepted truth by revisioning the world.
“In order to pursue long-range thoughts, we must derive
sufficient reward from a line of reasoning to keep at the idea yet remain
flexible and willing to abandon the idea once there is contrary evidence,”
notes Robert Burton, MD, in On Being Certain (2008).
Burton points to the central problem of certainty: Feeling certain arises
from “involuntary mental sensory systems,” neurological, not rational, that
attach and become embedded in the ideas themselves. So “complete objectivity
is not an option,” because we can’t separate our ideas from our devotion to
their “rightness.”
The feeling of knowing in fact can easily become the enemy
of certainty, because it regularly betrays us—as everyone knows who has bet on
a sure thing that failed to fulfill the promise of coming true; at the
racetrack, casino, career path, voting polls, or romantic engagement.
Contrary evidence must be overwhelming and undeniable—and
yet, even in the face of contrary proof, we can maintain the original notion in
the process of “cognitive dissonance.” Bias is just one example of the
ways that “feeling right” controls thinking. Better thinking-–a function
of feeling--might lead us to rationally debunk ideas that don’t serve us well
but become built into the way we process information and experience. As Burton
puts it, “The continuing belief that we can strip our ideas of biases runs deep
and isn’t limited to those with a marginal understanding of [brain] science”
(p. 157).
Consciousness and culture
Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, in his Feeling and
Knowing: Making Minds Conscious (2021) links the search for human
consciousness through the brain to the rise of culture. He points to the
role of pain and suffering in the start-up to creative problem solving.
To counter the negative outcomes of physical and psychic damage (and death),
our minds became attuned to finding solutions aimed at avoiding and preventing
all manner of less-desirable states—physical, mental, and emotional. In this
way, culture was the emergent outcome of our need for at least basic safety and
security in all our many operations.
At the same time, well-being, pleasure, and joy inspired efforts and innovations to promote these states (beyond security) as the baseline for civilization and its promise of protections, again through creativity and shared beliefs. Our intellectual resources allowed for a collective bias against pain and promoting pleasure to prevail. The uniting consciousness of death, even beyond its suffering, is the powerful motive behind religion. This is the human attempt to deal with the inevitable yet unpredictable end of life—that is, for the person, the end of everything, evident from Greek tragedy and the Bible—and continuing.
* DNA image – Pixabay
