Avoiding Logical Error - Science and Confirmation Bias
Errors in logic must be avoided if you wish to have an open mind and use critical thinking. This of course means you must be open to all possibilities, forming opinions based on logic and analysis instead of preconceived ideas; confirmation bias can arise during analysis by making assumptions based on what you want to see, instead of evidence and logical deduction.
Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs. For example, if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month.
So what does that mean? An example from a recent study asking the question “how did religion evolve?” provides an example of confirmation bias. Try and notice the error(s) while reading.
Religion evolved as a byproduct of preexisting mental capacities, and not because it fulfilled a specific function of its own-though it can facilitate cooperation in society, a study concludes.
Why religion emerged among early humans remains a source of contention among scholars. Many scientists believe religion is ultimately based in the brain, but that still leaves unclear how and why these behaviors originated and how they may have been shaped during evolution. Some archaeologists think religion came about partly as a strategy by some people to grab power, simply by claiming some sort of secret knowledge.
Notice the error? They made (at least) two assumptions, and the data in their study “confirmed” their bias that religion somehow evolved from natural man — not God — because they failed to consider (or look for) what contradicted their beliefs:
- Evolution is true.
- No God exists.
Evolution remains an unscientifically proved assumption; it can’t explain how we got here scientifically (that is, with verifiable, repeatable scientific experiments). The study looked where it wanted to — to an unscientific method. A classic case of confirmation bias.
Second, if God exits, the bias in the study renders it not only useless, but dangerously misleading. We’ve written much on atheism already, but in brief atheism is by definition illogical as it’s impossible to state as fact God doesn’t exist unless you posses all knowledge in the cosmos. Atheists (by definition) lack critical thinking skills and fail to employ logic in their reasoning.
It’s neither scientific nor free-thinking to exclude vast areas for consideration, and it this case it’s an example of confirmation bias — so much so the study becomes worthless.
Copyright © Darrin Yeager 1998-2010
Comments
You quoted a summary of the
You quoted a summary of the research article from the public press. Does the summary accurately reflect the content of the actual research findings? Based only on the summary, it seems that it is possible that the authors of the original research paper neither assume nor reject the existence of God. Does God exist if everyone on Earth is an atheist? Most diestic religions would say yes, essentially that belief is not necessary for existence. Therefore, when you write that the authors of the summary (and let’s assume the authors of the original research) have confirmation bias in that they assume that no God exists, that assumption actually has no effect on the outcome of the study. Whether or not God exists is immaterial to exploring how religion as a population-level practice developed in human antiquity. Further, whether or not evolution is true (as an explanation for unity and diversity of life) doesn’t seem relevant to asking the question: how does religion as a human endeavor develop? Take away the actual type of religion (Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism), and substitute in religious disposition, and it is a valid question. I’m interested in your thoughts. I came across this post when doing a search for “confirmation bias and religion”, so I’m predisposed to be asking questions.
Therefore, when you write
They say religion came from a “byproduct of preexisting mental capacities”. In other words, religion came some time after man was walking the earth. If God created man, religion and man came at the same time. Thus, they’ve assumed the Biblical account is false.
It has to — if the assumption is wrong, the conclusions would most likely be as well. At best, the study is misleading based on incorrect assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.
That’s not what they’re saying. “Some archaeologists think religion came about partly as a strategy by some people to grab power”. Again, that assumes religion came after man, not at the same time, which assumes the Biblical account is false. It’s subtle, but it’s still an assumption which will color their study.
If the Adam and Eve in the Garden is true, religion could not have “emerged among early humans…based in the brain” — it existed at the same time humans did and was given by God. It never evolved in the brain by human nature.
From their statements, they don’t believe in God, and their study looks in that area, thus it’s confirmation bias — it’s looking at what they’ve already assumed and ignoring all else.
If you want to do a
If you want to do a scientific or religious exploration into something, don’t you always have to start with an assumption of some kind? In high school physics, the teacher kept saying “assume no friction” or “assume no gravity”… I always thought that was weird, because there is friction and gravity. But he said the physics we studied modeled what we know. If they make an assumption that there is no god and do a study, how is that different from making an assumption that there is a god? I’m confused about assumptions. It seems like you can’t let everything always be true… some things are not true and some things are unknown. I am working on the assumption that I will graduate from college, but I can’t be sure that I am. It doesn’t change the classes I register for.
In Physics class, you
In Physics class, you frequently approximate calculations without friction and/or gravity (both obviously false) simply to make the calculations easier, making it easier to illustrate the base principle without getting lost in a maze of calculations. It’s a teaching technique.
It might be better said “approximate the answer without considering gravity”. You’re still in the ballbark, and removing the assumptions increases the precision of your answer.
Now if you said do the problem assuming the color of the ball changes the effect of gravity (red = 1/2 of normal), you’ve completely changed the result, and no matter what you do the answer won’t be close. If you make that assumption before you begin, you’d better prove it or the results won’t make any sense — no matter how many approximations you remove when calculating.