Scientists need to be aware of their own biases, including feelings of gratitude towards the people funding their research. These biases can absolutely influence how and which evidence is presented in the results.

Considering the context of this comment, I'm honestly confused about why you're confused.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Scientists need to be aware of their own biases

They are...

It's drilled into everyone's head everyday since basic states, the entire purpose of "advanced states" is eliminating all unconscious bias...

And just because it's called "advanced stats" doesn't mean some scientists don't take it.

Considering the context of this comment, I’m honestly confused about why you’re confused.

Because you either didn't read my initial comment, or you did and just didn't understand what the words meant...

And instead of asking questions to understand, you're just a pigeon playing chess.

If I stop responding, it's because I gave up on you understanding and just blocked you. I feel like that's where this is quickly headed.

Edit:

For simplicity sake,

The problem with what you said is it's the same as saying:

Bus driver needs to turn bus on before they can be a good bus driver!

Yeah...

You're correct, but by saying that you think some bus drivers aren't turning the bus on and still somehow driving the bus, just means you don't understand anything about the process.

[–] Infrapink@thebrainbin.org 2 points 3 days ago

My epidemiology professor explained it to me.

In principle, iffy results would be countered by other scientists researching the same area, but you know, replication crisis.