I see strong examples of cognitive biases in a scientific interest of mine. Namely, archaeology / anthropology of 10,000 to 12,000 years B.P. Despite growing evidence that some sort of large meteor or comet hit the Earth causing the Younger Dryas cooling, the 'old guard' of academia refuses to address the evidence in a serious way. They dismiss it as crack-pot science, rather than trying to find reconciliation between their theories and the newer evidence arriving on the scene. But dig sites like Gobekli Tepe (re-discovered by an excellent German archaeologist), Big Eddy site in Missouri, are pushing back dates for civilization or organized living. Geologists are finding platinum layers corresponding to the impact date. And even as a interested observer, I can see the biases kicking in with each new article that comes out.
Scientists and their cognitive bias: Modern science's current narrative is that everything in existence, including the very forces of nature that this universe exists and functions by, all came from an expanding singularity. But now, does everything in existence even exist per se, OR does ONLY the singularity exist in the form of all things? Cognitive bias?
I wonder how many people watching this are saying to themselves: "yeah, those 'other' guys should change their viewpoint because mine is correct." When instead they should be saying: "Let me start with a clean slate on topic X, and look at the evidence and data with new eyes."
Our hands are made to handle sticks, but they can play the piano with enough training. Our brain is not a 'truth-finder' per se. The brain, like the hand, is a tool for survival. If believing something that is true increases the chances of survival, then the brain will believe the truth. If believing something that is false increases those chances, then it will believe the lie. In order to use your brain as a 'truth-finder', you need to train it.
I've had a personal interest in cognitive biases for a while. More like a hobby that arose from leading engineering and quality assurance groups. I'd like to refer people to the Wikipedia listing "List of cognitive biases". It's amazing how many different kinds there are.
Wow! i've been watching your video's for about 3 months.. The depth of your videos is so thick that i usually only watch one a week and try to digest what it is your presenting .. even watching the same video many times .. how ironic and so important that you tackle this problem
That's excellent video! Really underrated topic. I guess that not everybody's comfortable with discussing. Also one of the reasons I liked Neil deGrasse Tyson's masterclass is that he focused really on the biases in science.
Thank you so much, I always struggled explaining what a cognitive bias is and how it works, after watching your video I feel empowered to explain this to my family and friends! Love your videos, you're contributing more than it may seem. Videos like these shaped my life and career decisions. Keep up the amazing work!
Yeah, let state paid instructors indoctrinate the children how they should think. Giving more power to the enforcers of conformism will save science and humanity!!!
@@saitren565 what are you talking about? Children should be taught to question everything. Thats the most effective way to aquire reliable knowledge. If you want closed minded indoctrination then you need religion not science
@@Scoobydcs I am talking about the chances of children learning such a message in school. In most western countries schools are controlled by the state. States have no incentive whatsoever to create a critical public. The actions of a state reflect the interests and preferences of the elites who control that state. Explain why they would want to push for a critical public? My proposal is much simpler: parents should tell their children that scientists are not semi-gods and that they are subject to all the pettiness that everybody is capable of. No need for schools to be involved in this. Schools are themselves training camps for the amplification of cognitive biases.
Thank you Sabine, your videos are all very interesting, but this one in particular to me, because as a recently graduated PhD student, I have already been always discouraged to change topic (although I partially managed to do it) or to follow some new ideas because they were "exotic" or "too strange"... I feel this is a real problem in today's scientific research!
Sean Carroll talked about you on his last podcast, you are getting more and more famous! thats shows your firm positions and courage will prevail after all! Keep the good work fraulein Sabine!
I am not from the science community, but I can relate this video with almost every hot topic trending around me. Especially, about group thinking, I was aware that it is the main source of comfort amongst common people, and now I know that it can hurt our scientific progress as well. Thanks for the video!
Thanks! This is a great post. Talking about cognitive bias in science without giving fodder to the widespread anti-science sentiments is a delicate balance. You navigated this very well.
Absolutely brilliant!! Important reminder to every R&D scientist to learn modesty and self criticism before ever attempting real science. Trashing own hypothesis in spite of overwhelming positive feedback from the community is an unmistakable sign of the great mind!!
I'm likely to watch this video many times. I will also follow the link you included above to your blog. So thank you for helping me to help myself on this topic. Finally, congratulations on crossing the 50K subscriber count before the end of the year!
Cristal clear, brilliant delivery on the topic that is relevant to both contemporary science and beyond - to political/economic systems. Gratitude, Sabine!
This is the most important science video I have seen. Such is the problem that Americans can no longer even tell the difference between boys and girls.
Experiment: Watch the video from 1:10 while focusing a point half way between B and the border to the next square in direction of A. Wait some seconds and you will recognize the gray connection cut into half, with a sharp border between two different colors inside the connection. Excellent video. Something kinda off topic in addition. There is no way to avoid cognitive bias. You can swap from one set of cognitive bias to another set of cognitive bias. Like you can swap from one pair of glasses to another. Your whole life is a product of cognitive bias. Is there no way to get rid of it? Yeah, there is. In deep, empty meditation with everything gone except the feeling of being (not existence) you are freed from it. That's what you will see, when you have removed all your glasses. It's the only objective perspective possible., the one which contains nothing.
10 likes to you, Eternal Goof!!!!! WOW!!!! That observation blew me away! Now I recognize the effect because I have seen it analysed before, now i understand! The CONTRAST between left-A and A is oversaturated and when below-A loses the saturation (contrast) along the diagonal the color approaches A again, but now A is called B!!! And where have we seen that before? The French Cafe tiles illusion. I was unable to find the link, but one video I saw changed contrast gradually between the black and white tiles and at some point the illusion just disappeared! However, the same trick is in this video: m.ruclips.net/video/ycOKqOiyh9Y/видео.html Thanks!
Cognitive dissonance, groupthink and human bias are all important aspects and sure play a role explaining why the past 100 years saw so little progress in fundamental physics. But in all honesty, our current scientists are not totally to blame. It was precisely the generation of Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr that failed to see that physics is fundamentally based on a dual and symmetric continuum setting. One setup is dominant for our everyday ‘above Planck’ scale, the other for the ‘sub Planck scale’. Both setups however apply, getting equally strong near the Planck scale itself, which is why we see ‘Quantum effects’ arise there. In short the dual setup is the following: Above Planck scale Sub Planck scale GRID: Space (length; meters) Energy (Joules, eV, Nm) CLOCK: Time (seconds) Mass (kg) POTENTIAL: Energy Space INERTIA: Mass Time Each measure (SI unit) thus plays a double role in physics. Best known example is Energy displaying both its particle and grid role near the Planck scale, giving rise to the observed ‘particle-wave duality’ which is now fundamentally explained. Next, Sub-Planck features, which we call ‘spatial singularities’ have the academically simulated and observed trait of orthogonally wrapping fieldlines in spirals around their core, which is why we see their Energy grid as a multitude integer of Planck Energy distanced windings. This integer is the ‘Quantum’ which is now fundamentally explained. Moreover, since movement in the sub-Planck continuum is mass based and not time based, we interpret subatomic movement as ‘time instant’ or ‘time probabilistic’. However, in terms of energy and mass, there is perfect symmetric locality (quantum entanglement!) and determinism also at the sub-Planck scale. Einstein and Bohr completely failed to see this. The above setup can easily be proven: To get the movement formula in the sub Planck continuum we need to exchange units in the formula Distance=time*speed[distance/time]. This leads to E=M*(E/M) or E=M[J/kg = m2/s2=C2] or E=MC2. So we get the prediction that E=MC2 is the sub-atomic movement equation. Can this be? Well if we fuse two hydrogen cores, this means that their separating distance right before fusing must cross the sub-Planck scale so we must see the sub-Planck movement formula become apparent during fusion. We know from Einstein that indeed this is indeed E=MC2. There are many, many, many more confirmations that this dual setup is correct. Welcome to the 21st century….
I see so many examples of what you describe in society today. Of special note is when the media encourages group-think using attentional bias as a tool.
This is weird, I've read 2 out of 3 of the books in the beginning of the video, I quite often think about cognitive biases but it all goes out of the window when you get me on to politics. That's not the only subject i get caught up in cognitive biases but it stands out for me. I'm not one to comment on videos but this is good. The only problem is that I can listen to this kinds stuff all day but when i get out into the real world I fall back on confirmation bias, group think, strawman fallacy, etc. Thanks Sabine, you make me think and not trust my intuition. Keep making the challenging videos, your fantastic.
Of course, we should mention that science already does quite a bit to combat cognitive biases. In fact, you might say that is the whole point of the scientific method - finding ways to combat cognitive biases. The important thing here is, I think, to see the scientific method not as a long-ago established set of rules on how to do science, but as an ongoing project to find out how to do science.
All I need to do is to try to remember that I am not as smart as I think I am and there are vast numbers of people who are much smarter than I am and they are far more knowledgeable. Always back check your assumptions and regularly check your biases. Sabine, you are a gem. That's my bias.
@@DIGtotheIT @Michael Rexrode Please look up "Is Planck's 'Principle' True?" John T. Blackmore, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science you need only read the abstract.
So much science fits what you say. 'Transitioning' hormones and surgery, food science, studying genetics in autism syndrome, doing no work on grassroots studies of Parkinson's, on and on and on.
Bravo! Case in point: Hollywood. There are few movies made that have any real content. The good screenwriters were lost when they went on strike and were all fired. As a result we get reality shows and remakes of old successful stories recast for an audience that is unaware of the source of the script. Coupled with the groupthink that Hollywood and California should be telling us what to think and what the future should be, we are paralyzed and heading for the bottom. Many thanks to you and to your team for the outstanding content and presentations. You are a breath of fresh air and inspiration. See you next week. ❤️
What's weird is you would think losing $100 million+ on several remakes (e.g. Ben Hur, Men in Black, Terminator) would make them understand that they need to change. But year after year they repeat the same behavior.
It also applies to the real aspects of the science of climate change - this is how we still get science to support dire disasters that simply does not happen in the event. Also it is why the two Royal Societies in the UK refuse to hear papers that do not agree with the supposed consensus. It needs to be addressed and fast.
@@Mosern1977 Yes, and this is why anyone who says "we need to stop burning coal" gets attacked so quickly. Coal and oil are extremely profitable. Mess with that and they will be all over you.
This can apply to so many things in science currently. Medicine, climate, any research topic really. It really can apply to anything in the world or anybody on a personal level. Thank you so much for mentioning group think unfortunately it seems as though that has been on the rise in its quite tightening. I love this video
Outstanding. This critical topic used to be taught and reinforced by many, if not all, science faculties yet, only a few months ago, I heard a senior researcher speaking at a symposium list the concept of consensus as one of the key validations for their thesis (not climate related by the way).
Sabine, I love how well you put "cognitive bias", into perspective. No wonder we cant solve many of the problems facing the world. thank you, Sabine, your like a precious gem amongst rock...always enjoy learning how to think, peace!
*can't *you're Plus the random comma after 'bias"' and the lack of a capital letter for the beginning of a sentence both should be edited. You say you love to learn to think, so there's some more to think about. 🤔 😉
This is one of the best presentations by Sabine or any other scientist or 'scientist' I've heard since James Tour's lectures on OoL (Origin of Life) research. Both are a must listen with serious contemplation of what is being said.
The competition between rival research groups in the same field is so important to prevent science going off the rails. The social, cultural and incentive processes in the scientific community can lead to serious error. During the short ten years in scientific research (in life sciences) I spent I saw serious problems of selection bias. Researchers would accept result that fitted what they wanted and rejected those that did not. Those experiments which did not fit were said to have 'gone wrong' and negative results were ignored. Statistical analysis then applied to the chosen few results which fitted made the strength of the theory look much greater than it probably was. The problem is the incentives are all to produce positive results. You get no rewards for disproving someone else's idea, but great rewards for being the person who came up with the 'right theory'. You have not 'discovered' anything if you spend your life undermining or disproving popular hypotheses. The result is that scientists tend to find what they look for and this happens almost imperceptibly as a result of daily biases in their work. Thus it is only really the determination of one research group to undermine another that prevents everyone joining on the same bandwagon. I saw plenty of evidence for the existence of such 'bandwagons', you can all it 'group think'. In fact I do not know the reference but meta-research has been done which has shown the emergence of popular hypotheses and concepts around which there is a burst of work at one point in history, then looking backwards little more is ever heard about the 'Great Idea', it just 'goes out of fashion' and makes no long term difference to the field.
This is a very important topic, and Sabine's contributions toward encouraging a more critical attitude within science itself are most welcome. Along similar lines, I would urge Sabine and others to have a look at the long-neglected critical work of Dewey B. Larson, notably his 1961 memorandum "Just How Much Do We Really _Know_ ?" and his 1963 book _The Case Against the Nuclear Atom_ .These can be considered independently of any evaluation of Larson's own positive proposals (incidentally, a much more ambitious and non-trivial task - as recognized by such scientists as the late Felix Schmeidler of the Munich Astronomical Observatory). In addition to its remarkable insights regarding foundations of the nuclear theory (which even up to today have _never_ been critically examined by the scientific profession at large) one of the concluding chapters of the latter book contains specific policy recommendations for making science function more much more optimally. Larson's memorandum is here: philpapers.org/rec/LARJHM-3
I can't say it better than an earlier comment (by Moebius), so all i can do is repeat it. This (really!) is super important information to remember for scientists and non scientists. Everything you mention here can be applied to our daily lives. Thank you Sabine.
Your view is so much appreciated. It appears in today's academia so many teachers, educators and professors implant their biases on their students. Open mindedness is neccessary for learning.
It is important in many different walks of life to be aware of this cognitive bias. Thankfully it is now openly discussed under non technical skills for surgeons in general.
An excellent discussion. It of course not only applies to scientists but to all of us, as we seem to be slipping into a world where one’s opinion can be taken as a fact on any matter. Billy
One would hope that a good peer review process would mitigate or minimize cognitive bias, but that is not always the case, particularly when the peer review committee has a particularly ingrained view.....but we can always improve the process.
Important subject, but the intresting bit that we have yet to fully face as a species is that our cognitive biases have the same kind of structure as every other form of reasoning! We develop functional language and visualizations for explaining things and we use those to reason, until we can produce some sort of toy model, but in the end the models validity and applicability in relation to nature is an inpossible question in the absolute. Therefor we always have to use cognitive shortcuts to make sense of anything, the question is how to make our cognitive shortcuts more generally applicable and less wrong.
How Scientists Can Avoid Cognitive Bias: 1. Absolute Honesty 2. Absolute Integrity 3. Absolute science. The three absolutes, without them 'science' is just another word for silly.
I like how you say that we should organize Science around our cognitive biases, so that we can best compensate for them. However, this 'organizing' should also look at the environment Science is done in, and remove monetary incentives from Science. There is no bigger cause of bad Science than Capitalism and the hunt for social security. From paper mills, to completely fake papers, to fiddling data, to funding bias, to study-hiding and so on and so on, all to secure a safe space in a combative ideological world. It's a remarkable thing that almost no Scientist have mentioned that the profit motive are incompatible with the truth-motive, and that Capitalism therefore must be removed from Science. Remember that ideologies - 'isms' - are nothing more than Atheist religions..
''Holding every thought and action to the mind of the Maker'll stop all Cognitive Biases.'' -121419 ''For man is opposed to fair play. He want's it all. & he want's it his way.'' -Bob Dylan Rockin' match the hatch attire for the checker board. Helped to hang the gestalt. Keep keeping the ''Physic's Sanity'' alive for us Sabine.
Finally there's that strong smart someone who's got the courage to speak out on scientific basis, eventhough she's not bias free, and that's from supporting the mythical Gravity while fully well knowing ENERGY is the cause of all motion, and not Gravity. Hopefully there'll be other scientist's and physicists joining with her repeating as she just said, "its about humanity's progress."
Excellent video! I’ve encountered cognitive bias (and engaged in this at times) in all areas of life. If we understand this behavior better, we become better equipped to tackle challenges effectively. Thank you for all that you do, Sabine! I hope you get 10 million subscribers!
Is cognitive bias different to bias? The social scientists write chapters on their epistemological approaches, ontological viewpoints, and the other one. This is supposed to safeguard against bias in their work. I am not sure they always do, but they are supposed check very carefully for bias. In engineering it is generally assumed the planet is round and gravity sucks, and that is all the ontology you need. Some social scientists call this naïve realism.
I am on 3, 2, so far: "Since the theory we look for should be deterministic and the wavefunction derives from it, we are dealing with a so-called hidden-variable theory. We can ask what exactly are these hidden variables, which in the following are collectively represented by the symbol λ." In my low resolution 8-armed verb to be model, the "hidden variable" lies in assuming that the 8 flux states are wrapped around an "invisible" center and have an angle of action. Please allow me to continue along that line of reasoning: the symbol that I used in that meager example was 12345678. It's both receptor and emitter, observed and observer. (My example of angle of action was badly mangled the other day, trying again: 3 friends are standing up and watching tv, if you walk by and tap each one on the shoulder there is a different angle of action if the tap is on the left or on the right.) "The answer depends on the specific model one is dealing with, but loosely speaking λ contains all the information that is required to determine the measurement outcome (except the “not hidden” variables that are the state preparation). In this picture, quantum mechanics is not deterministic simply because we do not know λ." As a general rule it's impossible to have a thought about another person that is not gravitational. That capability appears after the toddler stage in human development. But 12345678 is permanent and intrinsic to the mind. Therefore, the emitter knowledge is not relevant: if both observer and observed are predetermined to be gravitational they are already entangled. (Keep in mind that you are talking science and I, linguistics.) "It is important to realise that these hidden variables are not necessarily properties intrinsic to or localised within the particle that one measures; they merely have to determine the outcome of the measurement." Doesn't agree with what I know. (Yes, you are talking about "this picture", I understood.) My point is that superdeterminism has nothing to do with free will and only implies that you are free to think ALL the thoughts you want because when they are gravitational they are already predetermined by higher and higher resolutions of gravity. Under *extremely rare circunstances only* would that imply decision-taking.
"you are free to think ALL the thoughts you want because when they are gravitational they are already predetermined by higher and higher resolutions of gravity": Sorry. That was me stating the breathtaking banality of the reality that you can NOT have a thought that is not prewritten in the fabric of the universe: no extra-universals for anyone, no exception. If you have a thought, it's predetermined and predicted by the fabric of the universe -NO EXCEPTIONS. In fact, you have tens of thousands of thoughts per day and only a tiny fraction of them ever become decisions.
That is, the THOUGHT is already predetermined. NOT YOUR CHOICE TO THINK IT. Unless you are facing demonic pimps, in which case all of the thoughts are already predetermined to be against you...
3, 3, still reading: "While it is straightforward to write down Statistical (In)dependence as a mathematical requirement, the physical interpretation of this assumption less clear. One may be tempted to read the probability encoded by ρ as a frequency of occurrence for different combinations of (λ,a,b) that happen in the real world. However, without further information about the theory we are dealing with, we do not know whether any particular combination ever occurs in the real world. E.g., in the case that a pair of entangled particles is labelled by a unique λ, for any value of λ only one pair of values for a and b would actually be realised in the real world." Having difficulties parsing the idea densities. Statistical dependence is protonic whereas statistical independence is neutronic, as far as I am concerned. My proton model is public knowledge, all of Lunatica is neutronic -that is why you don't know that the only thing that could possibly be at the center of the 8-armed circle of any gauge is a complete "invisible" proton. It occurs to me that the complete 8 pi field equation by Einstein is just a description of a neutron in low resolution -how can I think anything else??? It will take many days, weeks, months, to sort out my confusions from yours!!! Hold your breaths, Tim and Sabine...
Still stuck: "in the case that a pair of entangled particles is labelled by a unique λ, for any value of λ only one pair of values for a and b would actually be realised in the real world": Trying to parse still: what you call "unique λ" has n zoom levels. For this case, in my interpretation, it's a 12345678, where each digit stands for a flux state 2 times 8. And each flux state was generated from a seed (2 times 9). (because I don't have a computer and am unable to lunaticize (2 times 512, for instance)) Don't know where this is going but refuse to accept it's nowhere!
3.1, I missed it before: "The possibility that both detector and prepared state are correlated because of a common event in the past is commonly referred to as the “locality loophole” (to Bell’s theorem)": There is no "common event in the past" that was "shared". There is only a universal language, predetermined by the universe.
As a INFJ the way that people misuse the intuition stands out to me... especially in the scientific community. If the word assumption was used in its place... it would be far more accurate. Because a person who is using their intuition would actually be inclined to be suspicious of illusion and doubt what their mind is doing. Language is not static it is molded into something different by common use but this creates confusion. You’re using the word as it is frequently used in by the scientific community because of a bias against the word intuition. I found the irony humorous and wanted to share. Similar to how decimated means ten percent but it is frequently used in place of annihilated. Precision is valuable and language is the source of information and misunderstandings. Thank you very much for all you do, Sabine.
This is very important for science. Unfortunately it has taken considerable time to come about. Other professions adopted corrective thinking much earlier and is implemented much more aggressively. The law profession uses many good strategies to overcome Cognitive Bias. My personal favourite are hypotheticals. Where, for example, they may use the case of an hypothetical murder to sort the crap from the facts in a parking fine. Good luck trying to implement that in science though. 👍
Loss aversion is actually a rational thing in most situations. It arises from the general proposition that, on average, it costs much more to start over from scratch than to continue from where you are. Giving up a line of inquiry doesn't usually just mean dealing with the psychological problem of admitting defeat, it also means throwing away much, if not all, of the special-purpose things that went into the pursuit of that line of inquiry. As such, in science, if one is attempting to minimize the average cost per discovery, one will quite rationally continue a line of research even if the probability of a discovery from it at that point is diminished relative to what it would be if one were to start a new line of inquiry, simply because the cost of starting the new line of inquiry can be expected to match or exceed the amount of resources that have already been put towards the current line of inquiry. I would expect that some analysis has been performed on this front, in an attempt to come up with some guidelines to help determine when one really should abandon a line of inquiry after having sunk a significant investment into it.
I am very pleased this issue has been raised and would have liked if political involvement in scientific research was included as well. State funding is not given to projects which politicians disapprove of and state education is dominated by political cognitive bias. The problem therefore is data is not read objectively but selectively in order to keep within a certain paradigm.
This is super important information to remember for scientists and non scientists.
Everything you mention here can be applied to our daily lives.
That will ruin your daily live as you know it.
Excellent video! I wonder if this important information is able to seep through people's egos, and basic fears? Hmmm..
I see strong examples of cognitive biases in a scientific interest of mine. Namely, archaeology / anthropology of 10,000 to 12,000 years B.P. Despite growing evidence that some sort of large meteor or comet hit the Earth causing the Younger Dryas cooling, the 'old guard' of academia refuses to address the evidence in a serious way. They dismiss it as crack-pot science, rather than trying to find reconciliation between their theories and the newer evidence arriving on the scene. But dig sites like Gobekli Tepe (re-discovered by an excellent German archaeologist), Big Eddy site in Missouri, are pushing back dates for civilization or organized living. Geologists are finding platinum layers corresponding to the impact date. And even as a interested observer, I can see the biases kicking in with each new article that comes out.
Agree.
Scientists and their cognitive bias: Modern science's current narrative is that everything in existence, including the very forces of nature that this universe exists and functions by, all came from an expanding singularity. But now, does everything in existence even exist per se, OR does ONLY the singularity exist in the form of all things? Cognitive bias?
For reference:
0:45 Definition of Cognitive Bias
2:25 Ex: Attentional Bias
4:40 Ex: Loss Aversion Bias
4:15 Ex: Social Reinforcement Bias
4:55 Ex: Shared Information Bias
Should be pinned!
4:15 Circle jerk
I wonder how many people watching this are saying to themselves: "yeah, those 'other' guys should change their viewpoint because mine is correct." When instead they should be saying: "Let me start with a clean slate on topic X, and look at the evidence and data with new eyes."
This!
Steelman your opponents arguments, rather than strawman them. This is how to really understand the topic well.
4:02 - referring to string theory, perhaps? :)
Our hands are made to handle sticks, but they can play the piano with enough training.
Our brain is not a 'truth-finder' per se. The brain, like the hand, is a tool for survival. If believing something that is true increases the chances of survival, then the brain will believe the truth. If believing something that is false increases those chances, then it will believe the lie.
In order to use your brain as a 'truth-finder', you need to train it.
@@juanausensi499 Nice! Sounds like a Rehabilitation Specialist has entered the chat.
Outstanding. Sabine is the best thing to happen to science in decades.
Watching you think is my favorite thing to do on the Internet.. Thank you, Sabine.
Sabine is a warrior of clarity and honesty.
I've had a personal interest in cognitive biases for a while. More like a hobby that arose from leading engineering and quality assurance groups.
I'd like to refer people to the Wikipedia listing "List of cognitive biases". It's amazing how many different kinds there are.
Wow! i've been watching your video's for about 3 months.. The depth of your videos is so thick that i usually only watch one a week and try to digest what it is your presenting .. even watching the same video many times .. how ironic and so important that you tackle this problem
That's excellent video!
Really underrated topic. I guess that not everybody's comfortable with discussing.
Also one of the reasons I liked Neil deGrasse Tyson's masterclass is that he focused really on the biases in science.
Thank you so much, I always struggled explaining what a cognitive bias is and how it works, after watching your video I feel empowered to explain this to my family and friends!
Love your videos, you're contributing more than it may seem. Videos like these shaped my life and career decisions.
Keep up the amazing work!
Great video, and yes, VERY important - in regular, everyday life, too!
forget scientists, this needs to be taught in SCHOOLS!!!!
It is you ignoramus.
@ the political landscape demonstrates otherwise
Yeah, let state paid instructors indoctrinate the children how they should think. Giving more power to the enforcers of conformism will save science and humanity!!!
@@saitren565 what are you talking about? Children should be taught to question everything. Thats the most effective way to aquire reliable knowledge. If you want closed minded indoctrination then you need religion not science
@@Scoobydcs I am talking about the chances of children learning such a message in school. In most western countries schools are controlled by the state. States have no incentive whatsoever to create a critical public. The actions of a state reflect the interests and preferences of the elites who control that state. Explain why they would want to push for a critical public? My proposal is much simpler: parents should tell their children that scientists are not semi-gods and that they are subject to all the pettiness that everybody is capable of. No need for schools to be involved in this. Schools are themselves training camps for the amplification of cognitive biases.
Truth starts with accepting that it may not be politically or even personally accommodating.
Thank you Sabine, your videos are all very interesting, but this one in particular to me, because as a recently graduated PhD student, I have already been always discouraged to change topic (although I partially managed to do it) or to follow some new ideas because they were "exotic" or "too strange"... I feel this is a real problem in today's scientific research!
Yeah but turn her upside down and she's got a lambda around her neck
Someone has no visual biases.
I'm still functional though
@@djdtahoe Somewhat, at least. People usually don't like it when turned upside down.
Yeah 🕶 Give this man a middle 👏
OMG! She is a closet lisp coder! Yes!!!
Need reminding this quite regularly and widely.
Thank you Sabine for taking your wisdom to the masses. You are always engaging.
Sean Carroll talked about you on his last podcast, you are getting more and more famous! thats shows your firm positions and courage will prevail after all! Keep the good work fraulein Sabine!
I am not from the science community, but I can relate this video with almost every hot topic trending around me. Especially, about group thinking, I was aware that it is the main source of comfort amongst common people, and now I know that it can hurt our scientific progress as well. Thanks for the video!
Thanks! This is a great post. Talking about cognitive bias in science without giving fodder to the widespread anti-science sentiments is a delicate balance. You navigated this very well.
Right on! I am sending to my daughter who is applying to grad school.
@rrobertt13 can you elaborate?
@rrobertt13 will you?
@@Twelfth512 Doubtful.
In other words, it was a stupid thing to say by a guy with poor social skills..
Absolutely brilliant!! Important reminder to every R&D scientist to learn modesty and self criticism before ever attempting real science.
Trashing own hypothesis in spite of overwhelming positive feedback from the community is an unmistakable sign of the great mind!!
I'm likely to watch this video many times. I will also follow the link you included above to your blog. So thank you for helping me to help myself on this topic. Finally, congratulations on crossing the 50K subscriber count before the end of the year!
I've been about to say that for a week and you beat me to it! Grrrrr...😥
CONGRATS, DR. HOSSENFELDER!!!
The most useful science related video I watched on youtube in 2019. Unfortunately, youtube allows clicking thumbs up only once per video.
Cristal clear, brilliant delivery on the topic that is relevant to both contemporary science and beyond - to political/economic systems. Gratitude, Sabine!
This is the most important science video I have seen. Such is the problem that Americans can no longer even tell the difference between boys and girls.
So important!
What a rigorous and intelligent breakdown.
Your voice of reason is refreshing and I hope you'll be heard more.
The most important topic facing humanity today.
is called stupidity.
@Varun Rao You could be correct. or...
@@ofdrumsandchords Or more succinctly, right wingers/conservatives. But then again, they are stupid and/or greedy anyway, sooo...
Experiment: Watch the video from 1:10 while focusing a point half way between B and the border to the next square in direction of A. Wait some seconds and you will recognize the gray connection cut into half, with a sharp border between two different colors inside the connection. Excellent video. Something kinda off topic in addition. There is no way to avoid cognitive bias. You can swap from one set of cognitive bias to another set of cognitive bias. Like you can swap from one pair of glasses to another. Your whole life is a product of cognitive bias. Is there no way to get rid of it? Yeah, there is. In deep, empty meditation with everything gone except the feeling of being (not existence) you are freed from it. That's what you will see, when you have removed all your glasses. It's the only objective perspective possible., the one which contains nothing.
10 likes to you, Eternal Goof!!!!! WOW!!!! That observation blew me away! Now I recognize the effect because I have seen it analysed before, now i understand!
The CONTRAST between left-A and A is oversaturated and when below-A loses the saturation (contrast) along the diagonal the color approaches A again, but now A is called B!!!
And where have we seen that before? The French Cafe tiles illusion. I was unable to find the link, but one video I saw changed contrast gradually between the black and white tiles and at some point the illusion just disappeared! However, the same trick is in this video:
m.ruclips.net/video/ycOKqOiyh9Y/видео.html
Thanks!
This is, by far, the most interesting of your videos I have watched. This topic applies to almost all aspects of life.
Thank you, Sabine.
Cognitive dissonance, groupthink and human bias are all important aspects and sure play a role explaining why the past 100 years saw so little progress in fundamental physics. But in all honesty, our current scientists are not totally to blame. It was precisely the generation of Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr that failed to see that physics is fundamentally based on a dual and symmetric continuum setting. One setup is dominant for our everyday ‘above Planck’ scale, the other for the ‘sub Planck scale’. Both setups however apply, getting equally strong near the Planck scale itself, which is why we see ‘Quantum effects’ arise there. In short the dual setup is the following:
Above Planck scale Sub Planck scale
GRID: Space (length; meters) Energy (Joules, eV, Nm)
CLOCK: Time (seconds) Mass (kg)
POTENTIAL: Energy Space
INERTIA: Mass Time
Each measure (SI unit) thus plays a double role in physics. Best known example is Energy displaying both its particle and grid role near the Planck scale, giving rise to the observed ‘particle-wave duality’ which is now fundamentally explained.
Next, Sub-Planck features, which we call ‘spatial singularities’ have the academically simulated and observed trait of orthogonally wrapping fieldlines in spirals around their core, which is why we see their Energy grid as a multitude integer of Planck Energy distanced windings. This integer is the ‘Quantum’ which is now fundamentally explained. Moreover, since movement in the sub-Planck continuum is mass based and not time based, we interpret subatomic movement as ‘time instant’ or ‘time probabilistic’. However, in terms of energy and mass, there is perfect symmetric locality (quantum entanglement!) and determinism also at the sub-Planck scale. Einstein and Bohr completely failed to see this.
The above setup can easily be proven: To get the movement formula in the sub Planck continuum we need to exchange units in the formula Distance=time*speed[distance/time]. This leads to E=M*(E/M) or E=M[J/kg = m2/s2=C2] or E=MC2. So we get the prediction that E=MC2 is the sub-atomic movement equation. Can this be? Well if we fuse two hydrogen cores, this means that their separating distance right before fusing must cross the sub-Planck scale so we must see the sub-Planck movement formula become apparent during fusion. We know from Einstein that indeed this is indeed E=MC2. There are many, many, many more confirmations that this dual setup is correct. Welcome to the 21st century….
I see so many examples of what you describe in society today. Of special note is when the media encourages group-think using attentional bias as a tool.
This is weird, I've read 2 out of 3 of the books in the beginning of the video, I quite often think about cognitive biases but it all goes out of the window when you get me on to politics. That's not the only subject i get caught up in cognitive biases but it stands out for me.
I'm not one to comment on videos but this is good. The only problem is that I can listen to this kinds stuff all day but when i get out into the real world I fall back on confirmation bias, group think, strawman fallacy, etc.
Thanks Sabine, you make me think and not trust my intuition. Keep making the challenging videos, your fantastic.
Of course, we should mention that science already does quite a bit to combat cognitive biases. In fact, you might say that is the whole point of the scientific method - finding ways to combat cognitive biases.
The important thing here is, I think, to see the scientific method not as a long-ago established set of rules on how to do science, but as an ongoing project to find out how to do science.
A very important point that should be kept in mind by all of us especially in an argument or debate.
Scientists should encourage, and accept, criticism and differing opinions .
Very well presented video.
Science doesn't care about anyone's opinion until they have done the exhaustive research to support that opinion.
Well stated, Sabine !
I just love this channel. Good, unbiased information is hard to come by. Thank you so much!
Are you quite sure it is unbiased. If so, start to worry.
@@kensmith5694 deep... i mean, you are right, we are all biased. But at least this channel is aware of that.
All I need to do is to try to remember that I am not as smart as I think I am and there are vast numbers of people who are much smarter than I am and they are far more knowledgeable. Always back check your assumptions and regularly check your biases.
Sabine, you are a gem. That's my bias.
Thank you Sabine. Another excellent video, and if I may say an excellent delivery.
Humility and honesty is necessary in order to find the truth, scientific or otherwise.
What's that old bromide in academia? "Science advances one funeral at a time."
Michael Rexrode Yes the old can be heavily opposed to change; but the young need to be aware of bias too.
@@DIGtotheIT @Michael Rexrode
Please look up "Is Planck's 'Principle' True?"
John T. Blackmore, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science you need only read the abstract.
If we ever discover immortality, it will be the end of human progress.
@@xjohnny1000 or the start of a flurry of politically motivated murders...
So much science fits what you say. 'Transitioning' hormones and surgery, food science, studying genetics in autism syndrome, doing no work on grassroots studies of Parkinson's, on and on and on.
Bravo! Case in point: Hollywood. There are few movies made that have any real content. The good screenwriters were lost when they went on strike and were all fired. As a result we get reality shows and remakes of old successful stories recast for an audience that is unaware of the source of the script. Coupled with the groupthink that Hollywood and California should be telling us what to think and what the future should be, we are paralyzed and heading for the bottom.
Many thanks to you and to your team for the outstanding content and presentations. You are a breath of fresh air and inspiration.
See you next week. ❤️
What's weird is you would think losing $100 million+ on several remakes (e.g. Ben Hur, Men in Black, Terminator) would make them understand that they need to change. But year after year they repeat the same behavior.
Most excellent. It's such a pleasure to listen to this lady speak.
Teacher: "You have no intuition for physics!"
Student: "Neither do you"
that's the most important topic to prevent dogmatism in science in my opinion. Thank's for another great and free video!
It also applies to the real aspects of the science of climate change - this is how we still get science to support dire disasters that simply does not happen in the event. Also it is why the two Royal Societies in the UK refuse to hear papers that do not agree with the supposed consensus.
It needs to be addressed and fast.
Well, when billions of dollars are invested in the status quo, and you loose your job if you question it - science will suffer.
@@Mosern1977
Yes, and this is why anyone who says "we need to stop burning coal" gets attacked so quickly. Coal and oil are extremely profitable. Mess with that and they will be all over you.
Such a gem this channel is
This can apply to so many things in science currently. Medicine, climate, any research topic really. It really can apply to anything in the world or anybody on a personal level. Thank you so much for mentioning group think unfortunately it seems as though that has been on the rise in its quite tightening. I love this video
This is a very good speech, but mostly a (very relevant) critic of the research system rather than of cognitive biases.
Outstanding. This critical topic used to be taught and reinforced by many, if not all, science faculties yet, only a few months ago, I heard a senior researcher speaking at a symposium list the concept of consensus as one of the key validations for their thesis (not climate related by the way).
I think it's important to apply a humility to one's work - as pride can often block an ability to accept a bias has occurred.
It's uncanny how closely these biases describe the interaction and dynamic of activists inside the twitter bubble/echo chamber.
This principle can be applied universally. Nothing is immune or exempt.
@@mike4ty4 His socially reinforced/shared information bias is showing.
Everybody is subject to cognitive bias.
Great info. Btw, almost 50k subscriptions. Well deserved.
Sabine, I love how well you put "cognitive bias", into perspective. No wonder we cant solve many of the problems facing the world. thank you, Sabine, your like a precious gem amongst rock...always enjoy learning how to think, peace!
*can't
*you're
Plus the random comma after 'bias"' and the lack of a capital letter for the beginning of a sentence both should be edited.
You say you love to learn to think, so there's some more to think about. 🤔 😉
This is one of the best presentations by Sabine or any other scientist or 'scientist' I've heard since James Tour's lectures on OoL (Origin of Life) research. Both are a must listen with serious contemplation of what is being said.
Excellent explanation 👍
Very enlightening video Sabine! Excellent work.
The competition between rival research groups in the same field is so important to prevent science going off the rails. The social, cultural and incentive processes in the scientific community can lead to serious error. During the short ten years in scientific research (in life sciences) I spent I saw serious problems of selection bias. Researchers would accept result that fitted what they wanted and rejected those that did not. Those experiments which did not fit were said to have 'gone wrong' and negative results were ignored. Statistical analysis then applied to the chosen few results which fitted made the strength of the theory look much greater than it probably was. The problem is the incentives are all to produce positive results. You get no rewards for disproving someone else's idea, but great rewards for being the person who came up with the 'right theory'. You have not 'discovered' anything if you spend your life undermining or disproving popular hypotheses. The result is that scientists tend to find what they look for and this happens almost imperceptibly as a result of daily biases in their work. Thus it is only really the determination of one research group to undermine another that prevents everyone joining on the same bandwagon. I saw plenty of evidence for the existence of such 'bandwagons', you can all it 'group think'. In fact I do not know the reference but meta-research has been done which has shown the emergence of popular hypotheses and concepts around which there is a burst of work at one point in history, then looking backwards little more is ever heard about the 'Great Idea', it just 'goes out of fashion' and makes no long term difference to the field.
Thank you! A very important topic for scientists but also everyone!! This should be talked and discussed early in life!
Excellent topic. Keep fighting the good fight Sabine.
This is a very important topic, and Sabine's contributions toward encouraging a more critical attitude within science itself are most welcome. Along similar lines, I would urge Sabine and others to have a look at the long-neglected critical work of Dewey B. Larson, notably his 1961 memorandum "Just How Much Do We Really _Know_ ?" and his 1963 book _The Case Against the Nuclear Atom_ .These can be considered independently of any evaluation of Larson's own positive proposals (incidentally, a much more ambitious and non-trivial task - as recognized by such scientists as the late Felix Schmeidler of the Munich Astronomical Observatory). In addition to its remarkable insights regarding foundations of the nuclear theory (which even up to today have _never_ been critically examined by the scientific profession at large) one of the concluding chapters of the latter book contains specific policy recommendations for making science function more much more optimally.
Larson's memorandum is here: philpapers.org/rec/LARJHM-3
Wonderful Sabine!
Thank you Sabine, for creating this gem.
I can't say it better than an earlier comment (by Moebius), so all i can do is repeat it. This (really!) is super important information to remember for scientists and non scientists.
Everything you mention here can be applied to our daily lives.
Thank you Sabine.
Your view is so much appreciated. It appears in today's academia so many teachers, educators and professors implant their biases on their students. Open mindedness is neccessary for learning.
It is important in many different walks of life to be aware of this cognitive bias. Thankfully it is now openly discussed under non technical skills for surgeons in general.
#Sabine, this subject matter is one of your best. I complete agree with you. Thank you for your work on this video.
An excellent discussion. It of course not only applies to scientists but to all of us, as we seem to be slipping into a world where
one’s opinion can be taken as a fact on any matter. Billy
Excellent video. In my opinion, this subject is at the base of many issues facing humanity.
Thank you.
Another good book on this subject is ‘The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behaviour. I’m glad you covered this topic.
Excellent analysis!
@@mello.b3373 You really ought to stop looking in the mirror when you write......you're projecting your cognitive biases on others, sweetie.
Subscribed. Your videos are clear, honest, short and to the point. Love the format. Pls keep going.
One would hope that a good peer review process would mitigate or minimize cognitive bias, but that is not always the case, particularly when the peer review committee has a particularly ingrained view.....but we can always improve the process.
In my experience, peer review makes cognitive biases worse, not better.
@@alexdevisscher6784, so is peer riview corrupt then?
@@erik-ic3tp no, it is human. And humans have biases.
Spectacular video Sabine 👏👏👏
Important subject, but the intresting bit that we have yet to fully face as a species is that our cognitive biases have the same kind of structure as every other form of reasoning! We develop functional language and visualizations for explaining things and we use those to reason, until we can produce some sort of toy model, but in the end the models validity and applicability in relation to nature is an inpossible question in the absolute. Therefor we always have to use cognitive shortcuts to make sense of anything, the question is how to make our cognitive shortcuts more generally applicable and less wrong.
Great video Sabine. Unfortunately scientists are not the most humble of people. To my cognitive bias I like your 20's dress.
Brilliant as always and a problem that goes way beyond science.
Fantastic information - hope I am not biased though! :)
(Kidding - really informative, succinct and lucid expose.)
Thank you. Detected a note of personal sadness in there. Huge respect to your work.
That was an amazing video, Thanks Sabine.
How Scientists Can Avoid Cognitive Bias:
1. Absolute Honesty
2. Absolute Integrity
3. Absolute science.
The three absolutes, without them 'science' is just another word for silly.
I like how you say that we should organize Science around our cognitive biases, so that we can best compensate for them. However, this 'organizing' should also look at the environment Science is done in, and remove monetary incentives from Science. There is no bigger cause of bad Science than Capitalism and the hunt for social security. From paper mills, to completely fake papers, to fiddling data, to funding bias, to study-hiding and so on and so on, all to secure a safe space in a combative ideological world. It's a remarkable thing that almost no Scientist have mentioned that the profit motive are incompatible with the truth-motive, and that Capitalism therefore must be removed from Science. Remember that ideologies - 'isms' - are nothing more than Atheist religions..
''Holding every thought and action to the mind of the Maker'll stop all Cognitive Biases.''
-121419
''For man is opposed to fair play. He want's it all. & he want's it his way.''
-Bob Dylan
Rockin' match the hatch attire for the checker board. Helped to hang the gestalt.
Keep keeping the ''Physic's Sanity'' alive for us Sabine.
Finally there's that strong smart someone who's got the courage to speak out on scientific basis, eventhough she's not bias free, and that's from supporting the mythical Gravity while fully well knowing ENERGY is the cause of all motion, and not Gravity.
Hopefully there'll be other scientist's and physicists joining with her repeating as she just said, "its about humanity's progress."
Excellent video! I’ve encountered cognitive bias (and engaged in this at times) in all areas of life. If we understand this behavior better, we become better equipped to tackle challenges effectively.
Thank you for all that you do, Sabine! I hope you get 10 million subscribers!
I really appreciate this persons work.
Is cognitive bias different to bias? The social scientists write chapters on their epistemological approaches, ontological viewpoints, and the other one. This is supposed to safeguard against bias in their work. I am not sure they always do, but they are supposed check very carefully for bias. In engineering it is generally assumed the planet is round and gravity sucks, and that is all the ontology you need. Some social scientists call this naïve realism.
I am on 3, 2, so far:
"Since the theory we look for should be deterministic and the wavefunction derives from it, we are dealing with a so-called hidden-variable theory. We can ask what exactly are these hidden variables, which in the following are collectively represented by the symbol λ."
In my low resolution 8-armed verb to be model, the "hidden variable" lies in assuming that the 8 flux states are wrapped around an "invisible" center and have an angle of action. Please allow me to continue along that line of reasoning: the symbol that I used in that meager example was 12345678. It's both receptor and emitter, observed and observer.
(My example of angle of action was badly mangled the other day, trying again: 3 friends are standing up and watching tv, if you walk by and tap each one on the shoulder there is a different angle of action if the tap is on the left or on the right.)
"The answer depends on the specific model one is dealing with, but loosely speaking λ contains all the information that is required to determine the measurement outcome (except the “not hidden” variables that are the state preparation). In this picture, quantum mechanics is not deterministic simply because we do not know λ."
As a general rule it's impossible to have a thought about another person that is not gravitational. That capability appears after the toddler stage in human development. But 12345678 is permanent and intrinsic to the mind. Therefore, the emitter knowledge is not relevant: if both observer and observed are predetermined to be gravitational they are already entangled. (Keep in mind that you are talking science and I, linguistics.)
"It is important to realise that these hidden variables are not necessarily properties intrinsic to or localised within the particle that one measures; they merely have to determine the outcome of the measurement."
Doesn't agree with what I know. (Yes, you are talking about "this picture", I understood.) My point is that superdeterminism has nothing to do with free will and only implies that you are free to think ALL the thoughts you want because when they are gravitational they are already predetermined by higher and higher resolutions of gravity. Under *extremely rare circunstances only* would that imply decision-taking.
"you are free to think ALL the thoughts you want because when they are gravitational they are already predetermined by higher and higher resolutions of gravity":
Sorry. That was me stating the breathtaking banality of the reality that you can NOT have a thought that is not prewritten in the fabric of the universe: no extra-universals for anyone, no exception. If you have a thought, it's predetermined and predicted by the fabric of the universe -NO EXCEPTIONS.
In fact, you have tens of thousands of thoughts per day and only a tiny fraction of them ever become decisions.
That is, the THOUGHT is already predetermined.
NOT YOUR CHOICE TO THINK IT. Unless you are facing demonic pimps, in which case all of the thoughts are already predetermined to be against you...
3, 3, still reading:
"While it is straightforward to write down Statistical (In)dependence as a mathematical requirement, the physical interpretation of this assumption less clear. One may be tempted to read the probability encoded by ρ as a frequency of occurrence for different combinations of (λ,a,b) that happen in the real world. However, without further information about the theory we are dealing with, we do not know whether any particular combination ever occurs in the real world. E.g., in the case that a pair of entangled particles is labelled by a unique λ, for any value of λ only one pair of values for a and b would actually be realised in the real world."
Having difficulties parsing the idea densities. Statistical dependence is protonic whereas statistical independence is neutronic, as far as I am concerned. My proton model is public knowledge, all of Lunatica is neutronic -that is why you don't know that the only thing that could possibly be at the center of the 8-armed circle of any gauge is a complete "invisible" proton. It occurs to me that the complete 8 pi field equation by Einstein is just a description of a neutron in low resolution -how can I think anything else???
It will take many days, weeks, months, to sort out my confusions from yours!!! Hold your breaths, Tim and Sabine...
Still stuck: "in the case that a pair of entangled particles is labelled by a unique λ, for any value of λ only one pair of values for a and b would actually be realised in the real world":
Trying to parse still: what you call "unique λ" has n zoom levels. For this case, in my interpretation, it's a 12345678, where each digit stands for a flux state 2 times 8. And each flux state was generated from a seed (2 times 9). (because I don't have a computer and am unable to lunaticize (2 times 512, for instance))
Don't know where this is going but refuse to accept it's nowhere!
3.1, I missed it before:
"The possibility that both detector and prepared state are correlated because of a common
event in the past is commonly referred to as the “locality loophole” (to Bell’s theorem)":
There is no "common event in the past" that was "shared". There is only a universal language, predetermined by the universe.
As a INFJ the way that people misuse the intuition stands out to me... especially in the scientific community. If the word assumption was used in its place... it would be far more accurate. Because a person who is using their intuition would actually be inclined to be suspicious of illusion and doubt what their mind is doing. Language is not static it is molded into something different by common use but this creates confusion. You’re using the word as it is frequently used in by the scientific community because of a bias against the word intuition. I found the irony humorous and wanted to share. Similar to how decimated means ten percent but it is frequently used in place of annihilated. Precision is valuable and language is the source of information and misunderstandings. Thank you very much for all you do, Sabine.
You can not avoid it.
But a clever "Thought Experiment ", can help resolve some of the issues.
Thanks, Sabine!
I take great inspiration from these videos. Thank you for speaking about these important topics in such a straight forward manner.
This is very important for science. Unfortunately it has taken considerable time to come about. Other professions adopted corrective thinking much earlier and is implemented much more aggressively.
The law profession uses many good strategies to overcome Cognitive Bias. My personal favourite are hypotheticals. Where, for example, they may use the case of an hypothetical murder to sort the crap from the facts in a parking fine.
Good luck trying to implement that in science though. 👍
Thank you Sabine, l am a Buddhist priest....yet I can appreciate what you share here and apply to my zazen practice. Keep up your good work!
Loss aversion is actually a rational thing in most situations. It arises from the general proposition that, on average, it costs much more to start over from scratch than to continue from where you are. Giving up a line of inquiry doesn't usually just mean dealing with the psychological problem of admitting defeat, it also means throwing away much, if not all, of the special-purpose things that went into the pursuit of that line of inquiry. As such, in science, if one is attempting to minimize the average cost per discovery, one will quite rationally continue a line of research even if the probability of a discovery from it at that point is diminished relative to what it would be if one were to start a new line of inquiry, simply because the cost of starting the new line of inquiry can be expected to match or exceed the amount of resources that have already been put towards the current line of inquiry.
I would expect that some analysis has been performed on this front, in an attempt to come up with some guidelines to help determine when one really should abandon a line of inquiry after having sunk a significant investment into it.
This report is an eye-opener for many.
A lesson for all humankind
One of the biggest cognitive biases is the acceptance of evolution.
I am very pleased this issue has been raised and would have liked if political involvement in scientific research was included as well. State funding is not given to projects which politicians disapprove of and state education is dominated by political cognitive bias. The problem therefore is data is not read objectively but selectively in order to keep within a certain paradigm.