http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/07/31/mates.big.small.reut/index.html

Interesting. Humans in our culture are trained to believe about the opposite.
So how does human social bias affect observation?

Humens are not salmon or quail, young female teenagers love the jocks and pretty boys, but I'm sure the girls that gets raped a couple of times come to prefer more submissive men.

Let me clarify:
Most people share your view (I don't, I find "alpha males" to be annoying bullies who simply need a good bludgeoning, but this is not relevent).
We tend to believe that the most aggressive suiter will be the one rewarded by reproduction. This is generally the way humans act - hence the bias is that other animals will act in the same way.

Now, how possible is it for a scientist to rid himself/herself of such preconceptions? Is there any ethical duty to do so, or is it just good discipline?

I should have put this in ethics or something.

Good luck on finding a new jar.

It's only logical that women with bad experience from dominant males choose not to be with one later in life. Our culture may support aggressiveness, but as a phychological feature.

Edit: Aggressiveness not meant as bullying, but as a strong psyche.

*Cries*
This is not my point. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SEX OR WHO WANTS TO FUCK WHO.
And that's by no means the only reason.

Ok so your saying that our culture is so ingrain with the alpha male image that scientist will assume that as null hypothesis in study animal behavior? What argument is there in that?

Fetus:
Not that far. I'm saying that we scientists are humans, we tend to interpret things in the light of what we know.
Do we have any ethical obligation to fight this tendancy, if so, how is it fought?

You will forgive me for this rather random idea - I have become interested in the philosophy of science, especially how something as rational and skeptical as a scientist is influenced by the irrational. So Sartre meets Popper!
I'm more trolling for opinions than anything else.
Ach, I should have used a different example.

Sorry, it's 6.37 AM here and I've been working all night. I get your point.

Yeah, perhaps it's discipline. I can't find any other solution to see past our own cultural (or human?) biases. Other animals might depend on other physical features such as speed, colour, brawlvolume ;) or whatever to be the optimal ability for reproduction. It should be easy to research what is most important for a species though.

So what if the scientist are only humans, truth was found. evidence gain from science is unbiased (unless its been tampered with)

"truth was found. evidence gain from science is unbiased "

But only within limits, and stated errors.....

Maybe Xev should find some Michael Polanyi, i think hes quite important in philosophy of scince, i got part way into one of his bokos and couldnt get any further, it was jsut a bit dense. I think thats his name anyways, theres a couple of polanyis running around after WW2.

'Fetus:
"Truth" may be found, but given the incredible effects of scientific theory on society, do you think it's really a matter of "so what?"?

guthrie:
Thanks, I'll look into it.

orange:
Oh I know. I was running on three hours of sleep. Meh.

Its not something that can be change until robots and computers do all the thinking for us. then we will finally have unbiased scientist!

Well, who's eprogramming the computers?

Need i remind you of GIGO?

(by the way, WCF, when did your jar get broken? Are you looking for a new one?)

And Xev, if you find and read any Polanyi, coudl you give me yoru opinion on it please, id be interested to see what a mroe philosophically minded person thinks of it all. the book I was reading was about the logical leap that scientists apparently have to make to bring forth theories, ie they get so far on what they have in evidence etc, but then they make a leap of creation, faith, whatever, taht isnt a strictly scientific process.

AI would be self programming.

GIGO? yes all I know about it is its a internet protocol access program or the like.

Someone broke my jar, perhaps your momma :mad: I'll get revenge!

'Fetus:
AI self programming? Then it'd be more or less human, and capable of forming prejudices.

I'll get revenge!

How? Despite your declaration of war, you're still just a fetus in a jar.

guthrie:
Do you remember what book you were reading?

In PK Polanyi consistently emphasises personal judgement and the personal use of imagination as central to scientific advances. Of course logic and rationality are also seen as of great importance, both in formulating enquiries and in evaluating the conclusions, but these are considered to be subsidiary to the achievement of conceptual advances through the use of judgement and imagination. As is normally the case with Polanyi, the use of the word 'personal' in this context is not to be interpreted in the sense of subjective, for such contributions are offered to the world-wide community of scientists for criticism and evaluation i.e. these personal contributions are to be made with 'universal intent'.
http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/polanyi/9912/sheppard.html

Quite fascinating. I'll get back to you - I drifted away from the philosophy of science towards phenomenology and existentialism, but I think I'll pick something up.

Each individual no matter it be a man or woman has certain prerequesites for their mates. This usually comes from the parents as men look for women that resemble their mothers and women are looking for men who resemble their fathers somewhat. That's just one of the many things that we as humans use to judge our mates no matter what profession we happen to have.

Common interests are another area that men and women look to each other for mutual conversation and commaradery with. People tend to stay withing their environments when looking for companionship as to be close to their ideals and goals. Sometimes opposites attract and that's because a little spice in life always keeps each other interested in the others goings on. Many people just take whoever they can find and try to mold then into someone they want them to be, which usually ends in divorce.

Freedom of jealousy, freedom to go without being questioned everytime you go somewhere and money are things that always interfer with a relationship. Those are the areas to find out about befor going to far in any relationship IMO.