Science desk
< March 19	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 20[edit]

Cognitive bias for thinking everything a science field produces is positive?[edit]

Is there a term for folks in particular science fields who are so enmeshed in what they're doing that they develop a cognitive bias for being optimistic about everything contributed to the world from their field?

Take me, for example, as someone with a software engineering background, I frequently found myself thinking in terms of software being able to solve any problem. But as I've distanced myself from the field, it becomes clearer how unobjective I was in thinking like that.

Is Pro-innovation bias the best fit? I am asking a user of the Wikipedia rather than as an editor -- I don't intend to use any answer for editing purposes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is difficult because a priori its also a central nature of science to test and refute theories when they are wrong. There are early greek idealized philosophical theories about the reign of the wise, today collected in the term Noocracy and there is also Technocracy as a similar concept. Taylorism and Fordism are something similar too. These all imply the believe that pure science is the best of all ways to rule, judge and organize. However again, science includes questioning its ideas, altho it may take some time to conclude it was not good like Albert Einstein about his help to develop the nuclear bomb or Alfred Nobel inventing Dynamite. Science even recently "invented" Technology assessment as a new science! --Kharon (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That goes in the direction I intend, but I am trying to focus on a particular cognitive bias of the scientist (as an imperfect human being) in a specific field (which can be any specific field), whereas they become so idealized by their field that they in a sense become PR or evangelists for it. They ignore (or pretend to ignore) the negative ramifications of what their field produces, while seizing opportunities to trample on critics, no matter how well-founded the criticism. They make continual efforts to mold the minds of others toward their "positives only" view of their field. Maybe such scientists are indeed PR folks with a scientific background, but I don't want to assume they are PR. I wonder if there is a true cognitive bias here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on what you mean by science. I would consider software engineering to be a branch of engineering. Engineers typically think they can solve the world's problems. And they can do it better than most other people too, but you might end up with something like China with them in charge. Or did you mean computer science? Scientists tend to be a bit more modest. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not say what specific field I'm thinking of, as I would like to avoid a debate about that field. But I will say that a field where science is applied fits into this model. So you could say I'm referring to a cognitive bias of a scientist or engineer. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of biases could be used to describe this, but no one single phrase says it all. In-group_favoritism is relevant. As for the science/engineering thing Dmcq mentions, see[1], which specifically calls out Physicists as thinking they can do anything. On the other hand, I know plenty of Mechanical and Electrical engineers that don't think software is engineering. Anyway, I agree that many members of any group can get carried away overvaluing the contributions and abilities of that group. You can see it with computer folks, you see with with some academics. You can find fashion experts who will look you straight in the eye and say that fashion is all that matters. It's a little bit of in-group favoritism with sort of a group-level Dunning-Kruger effect. Which is not to say that everyone in these groups does it. I agree with Dmcq insofar as most of the very accomplished scientists I have met tend to be very cognizant of their field's limitations. As for the value of getting some distance from the field, that is also much discussed, though under many different terms (and in different fields). See e.g. Field_theory_(sociology), Standpoint_theory, Overview_effect, Cognitive_shift, this blog post [2] on the value of outsider's perspectives. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's scientism and technoutopianism. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]