Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The results showed that the false-consensus effect was extremely prevalent in all groups, but was the most prevalent in the oldest age group (the participants who were labeled as "old-age home residents"). They showed the false-consensus effect in all 12 areas that they were questioned about.
Melo-Martin and Intermann argue that these strategies come from a misdiagnosis: the real problem is not dissent, but public scientific illiteracy. Rather than focusing on dissent, scientists must concentrate on educating the general public, so that people could make educated opinions and recognize false claims and invalid arguments.
Fahraeus–Lindquist effect (blood) (fluid dynamics) (molecular and cellular biology) False consensus effect (cognitive biases) (futurology) (group processes) (psychological theories) (sustainability) Faraday effect (magnetism) (optics) Ferroelectric effect (condensed matter physics) (electrical phenomena) Fink effect (anesthesia) (diffusion)
A 1977 study conducted by Ross and colleagues provided early evidence for a cognitive bias called the false consensus effect, which is the tendency for people to overestimate the extent to which others share the same views. [17] This bias has been cited as supporting the first two tenets of naïve realism.
It was gradually discredited by the rise of organic chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biology, fields that failed to discover any "vital force." Friedrich Wöhler's synthesis of urea from ammonium cyanate was only one step in a long road, not a great refutation. [5] [6]
A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries gave examples of policy definitions. In Denmark, scientific misconduct is defined as "intention[al] negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist", and in Sweden as "intention[al] distortion of the ...
Irving Langmuir coined the phrase pathological science in a talk in 1953.. Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation (see the observer-expectancy effect and cognitive bias).
There are many philosophical and historical theories as to how scientific consensus changes over time. Because the history of scientific change is extremely complicated, and because there is a tendency to project "winners" and "losers" onto the past in relation to the current scientific consensus, it is very difficult to come up with accurate and rigorous models for scientific change. [17]