Referencing: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 07:17, 7 January 2024

Historically information was scarce, but now, due to the internet information is in overabundance and it's difficult to know what to trust. A common reference source, Wikipedia has tried to combat this issue by listing which sources are most reliable and excluding those which prefer clicks over fact:

Figure 2. Oligopoly of popular media.

However, the word reliable simply implies sources are not making things up. Reliability of factual accuracy does not take into account the potential biases of each source or framing of issues to make it more digestible to specific consumers. So for fact, one needs to look at the scientific literature, which should be able to deduct framing and bias to get at the root of an issue.

Scientific Bias

Figure 3. Science, Nature and Cell are considered the apex Journals however, they are part of a wider Oligopoly.

Although there are ongoing attempts to minimize bias in scientific research, achieving perfection is challenging. A significant issue revolves around the funding of studies, as financial support from private entities can potentially sway results in favor of commercial interests. This phenomenon, known as commercial bias, occurs when science sponsored by private entities aims to obtain a return on investment, introducing an influence that may subtly distort scientific findings.

Another contributing factor to bias is the predominant method of disseminating research through scientific journals, most of which are controlled by a handful of private corporations (See Figure 3). These entities hold the power to approve or dismiss studies, potentially framing the scientific discourse to reflect their own agendas. This gatekeeping may be a contributing factor to the replication crisis, where a significant number of studies cannot be reliably replicated by other researchers.

In conclusion, while scientific literature is generally more scrutinized than popular media, giving it better veracity, science should not be held on a pedestal as immune to bias. In response, BurnZero has implemented a critical analysis weighting system. This approach prioritizes scientific sources believed to be less influenced by bias, fostering a more objective understanding of scientific findings.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Our genes and culture has evolved in a world where information used to be scarce and of high authority. The internet changed this, by creating an over abundance of information with questionable authority. There is now too much to read for our information hungry brains yet a lot of it is presented not on the basis of fact but on the basis of getting our attention. Wikipedia has tried to combat this issue by listing which sources are reliable:'''[[File:News hierarchy.jpg|alt=News hierarchy|center|960x960px|News hierarchy]]
+'''Historically information was scarce, but now, due to the internet information is in [[Library of Babel|overabundance]] and it's difficult to know what to [[A free press is one you pay for|trust]].''' A common reference source, Wikipedia has tried to combat this issue by listing which sources are most reliable and excluding those which prefer clicks over fact:[[File:News hierarchy.jpg|alt=News hierarchy|center|960x960px|'''Figure 1'''. Wikipedia's news reliability hierarchy]]
-[[File:Corporate owners-media.png|alt=Oligo|thumb|'''Figure 2'''. Oligopolies of media.]]
+[[File:Corporate owners-media.png|alt=Oligo|thumb|'''''Figure 2'''. Oligopoly of popular media.'']]
-[[File:Weighting hierarchy.png|alt=Weighting hierarchy|thumb|'''Figure 3'''. Scientific weighting hierarchy.]]
-However, the word ''reliable'' simply implies they are not making things up, it does not take into account potential [[Cognitive biases|biases]] of each source [[framing]] issues to make it more digestible.
+However, the word ''reliable'' simply implies sources are not making things up. Reliability of factual accuracy does not take into account the potential [[Cognitive biases|biases]] of each source or [[framing]] of issues to make it more digestible to specific consumers. So for <u>fact,</u> one needs to look at the scientific literature, which should be able to deduct [[framing]] and bias to get at the root of an issue.
-Imagine all the information fictional and non-fictional that could ever be produced was produced and available to anyone via the internet. Every ''fact'' would have an equal amount of arguments for and against it irrelevant of its source. Borges in his book [[wikipedia:The_Library_of_Babel|The Library of Babel]],  creates a thought experiment where all possible 410-page books of a certain format and character set are available to anyone. Essentially, within our own confines this represents all knowledge humans '''could''' possibly produce. It would take several life times for one person to read each and every book. Similarly it would take multiple life times to read everything on the internet, understand its source and bias and whittle out the truth. This is especially difficult as our media is being aggregated into oligopolies which often serve a specific agenda (see '''Figure 2''').
+=== Scientific Bias ===
+[[File:Journal oligopoly.png|alt=Journal oligopoly|thumb|'''''Figure 3'''.'' Science'','' Nature ''and'' Cell ''are considered the apex Journals however, they are part of a wider Oligopoly.'']]
+Although there are ongoing attempts to minimize bias in scientific research, achieving perfection is challenging. A significant issue revolves around the funding of studies, as financial support from private entities can potentially sway results in favor of commercial interests. This phenomenon, known as [[Commercial Bias|commercial bias]], occurs when science sponsored by private entities aims to obtain a return on investment, introducing an influence that may subtly distort scientific findings.
-== Critical Appraisal ==
+Another contributing factor to bias is the predominant method of disseminating research through scientific journals, most of which are controlled by a handful of private corporations (See '''Figure 3'''). These entities hold the power to approve or dismiss studies, potentially [[framing]] the scientific discourse to reflect their own agendas. This gatekeeping may be a contributing factor to the replication crisis, where a significant number of studies cannot be reliably replicated by other researchers.
-Critical appraisal skills should be paramount in the fundamentals of our education. Before we learn anything we need to understand that facts are not [[Binary versus analogue|binary]] in nature. This would allow us to:
-* reduce information overload by eliminating irrelevant or weak studies.
+In conclusion, while scientific literature is generally more scrutinized than popular media, giving it better veracity, science should not be held on a pedestal as immune to bias. In response, BurnZero has implemented a [[critical analysis]] weighting system. This approach prioritizes scientific sources believed to be less influenced by bias, fostering a more objective understanding of scientific findings.
-* identify the most relevant papers.
-* distinguish evidence from opinion, assumptions, misreporting, and belief.
-* assess the validity of the study.
-* assess the usefulness and clinical applicability of the study.
-This is illustrated in '''Figure 3''' and is the key filtering technique that Burnzero uses to write articles. In fact on every page, at the bottom is a section named Reference, by clicking on the link next to the individual referenced article ([1], [2], [3] etc) you will be taken to an abstract or full article which is only featured if it fits within the higher levels of this hierarchy. Therefore, no news sources are used, only verifiable scientific papers, the intention of this is to bring us closer to fact than fiction.

Latest revision as of 07:17, 7 January 2024

Scientific Bias

Share your opinion