Modern techniques againts bias in science?

[Zixinus]

It is known that before WW2 even many scientists had racist ideas and advocated eugenics, calling racial stereotypes factual.

These results and conclusion stemmed from the inherent bias of the researchers.

What are the techniques to prevent similar level of bias?

[Darth Wong]

It is known that before WW2 even many scientists had racist ideas and advocated eugenics, calling racial stereotypes factual.

These results and conclusion stemmed from the inherent bias of the researchers.

What are the techniques to prevent similar level of bias?

Competition and hostility. It doesn't prevent individual bias, but it can correct for it. That's why the "can't we all get along" model is actually a bad model for intellectual progress.

[Zixinus]

Competition and hostility. It doesn't prevent individual bias, but it can correct for it. That's why the "can't we all get along" model is actually a bad model for intellectual progress.

Why didn't it work on aforementioned attitude and bias?

[Darth Wong]

Competition and hostility. It doesn't prevent individual bias, but it can correct for it. That's why the "can't we all get along" model is actually a bad model for intellectual progress.

Why didn't it work on aforementioned attitude and bias?

You can't prevent bias except by preaching about it, and that has a decidedly spotty track record. You can only CORRECT for it by encouraging others to openly challenge the biased researcher, in a hostile manner if need be.

[Zixinus]

You can't prevent bias except by preaching about it, and that has a decidedly spotty track record. You can only CORRECT for it by encouraging others to openly challenge the biased researcher, in a hostile manner if need be.

And were the racist conclusions not challenged at the time?

[Darth Wong]

You can't prevent bias except by preaching about it, and that has a decidedly spotty track record. You can only CORRECT for it by encouraging others to openly challenge the biased researcher, in a hostile manner if need be.

And were the racist conclusions not challenged at the time?

I'm not sure. That's not my area of expertise and I haven't done much research into it. They obviously were challenged eventually. One of the things about working in a new field of research is that there isn't a body of scientists out there to challenge you yet, which is why infant fields of research are usually looked on rather skeptically.

[TithonusSyndrome]

A perfect example of junk science that prospered due to a lack of criticism would be Lysenkoism, a dodgy method of agriculture enforced under Stalin that saw disastrous crop yields as a result and the execution of numerous prominent Soviet geneticists, one of the board Russkies can probably tell you more about that. The very idea that the Soviets thought they could dismiss entire fields of study, like genetics, as "bourgeois science" thoroughly drives a stake through the heart of that pathetic canard about the Soviet Union representing the failure of science-driven atheism.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You can't prevent bias except by preaching about it, and that has a decidedly spotty track record. You can only CORRECT for it by encouraging others to openly challenge the biased researcher, in a hostile manner if need be.

And were the racist conclusions not challenged at the time?

They were actually. Eugenics for example was roundly criticized rather early, the problem is, it struck a cord with the common folk and politicians which meant that the scientists that supported it could get on their bigotry soap-box without having to go through rigorous peer review.

[Kuroneko]

A perfect example of junk science that prospered due to a lack of criticism would be Lysenkoism, a dodgy method of agriculture enforced under Stalin that saw disastrous crop yields as a result and the execution of numerous prominent Soviet geneticists, one of the board Russkies can probably tell you more about that. The very idea that the Soviets thought they could dismiss entire fields of study, like genetics, as "bourgeois science" thoroughly drives a stake through the heart of that pathetic canard about the Soviet Union representing the failure of science-driven atheism.

Well, it was a lot easier to dismiss genetics when the gene itself was still without any known physical basis, but they didn't dismiss it as "bourgeois science." They dismissed it instead as fascist and racist. And with the genetics of the time very much linked to eugenics and the various sorts of racist pseudoscience alluded to in the OP, they weren't completely wrong in either charge. The real intellectual crime here is that the Soviet geneticists were prevented from extricating themselves from such associations and were instead summarily silenced.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You can't prevent bias except by preaching about it, and that has a decidedly spotty track record. You can only CORRECT for it by encouraging others to openly challenge the biased researcher, in a hostile manner if need be.

And were the racist conclusions not challenged at the time?

I'm not sure. That's not my area of expertise and I haven't done much research into it. They obviously were challenged eventually. One of the things about working in a new field of research is that there isn't a body of scientists out there to challenge you yet, which is why infant fields of research are usually looked on rather skeptically.

Still better track record for scientifically identifying and discarding crap hypotheses than the "social sciences" which have the audacity to criticize science.

Take a look at Paul Feyerabend who thinks that science should be "anything goes" (so we make sure we don't discourage any possible hypotheses) and Popper is dead wrong on falsificationism. And of course the so-called "Strong Programme" of the "sociology of science" which says all scientific discoveries can be described by social factors. What idiots.

[PeZook]

I'm not sure. That's not my area of expertise and I haven't done much research into it. They obviously were challenged eventually. One of the things about working in a new field of research is that there isn't a body of scientists out there to challenge you yet, which is why infant fields of research are usually looked on rather skeptically.

Heh, I find it funny that many idiots take one of the most important parts of science (that scientists disagree on a lot of things) and use it to demonstrate that science is useless.

Because, obviously, not criticizing idiotic ideas is good for progress.

A perfect example of junk science that prospered due to a lack of criticism would be Lysenkoism, a dodgy method of agriculture enforced under Stalin that saw disastrous crop yields as a result and the execution of numerous prominent Soviet geneticists, one of the board Russkies can probably tell you more about that.

Absurds were popular in the Soviet system. Somehow, soviet-styled communism bred them easily and in huge numbers - my theory is that the root cause was the prevalence of idiots in top political positions, who constantly competed to outdo their competitors, and could latch onto an idea and promote it despite all evidence that it's bullshit.

[K. A. Pital]

The USSR did ditch genetics in Stalin's time with Lysenko, but because of it's internationalist doctrine it didn't fall into the pitfalls of eugenics, that was the cause of forced sterilization and other nasty shit in other nations.

One absurdity cancelling out another.