When evaluating the weight of proposals or hypothesis’ in the natural and human sciences, bias invades effective analysis in determining the certainty of a statement. The glorification of the achievements in scientific fields are held to be the consensus for scientific understanding, and pre-empt knower’s ability to ponder alternative explanations, even if coincided with sufficient evidence. These instances invade both the natural and human sciences, where the scientific method is used in order to test theories into application.
At that point, does the scientific method fail when it doesn’t adapt to untested ideas that challenge the prevailing understanding in a field? This inquiry brings about the following knowledge question: to what extent does a knower’s certainty in existing knowledge theories preclude an analysis of new knowledge because of confirmation biases?
When examining the natural sciences, it is clear to see that the scientific community holds some theories and breakthroughs as the highest of achievements and don’t logically answer any challenges to them, other than “it’s been proven”. This is most clear on the topic of evolution; the scientific community has a rally around the flag effect on their consensus of evolution and its processes. Their conformity on their beliefs, that evolution is true and that the human species adapted from primates, is directed by their confirmation bias from the discoveries already made by the scientific method.
When differing interpretations of evolutionary theory are introduced, and are in contrast to the scientific consensus, such as aquatic theory, they are generally dismissed as non-viable, regardless of a hypothesis that can be tested with adequate support for consideration. This shows how bias can be a blinder towards imaginative and intuitive scientific inquires because the scientific community is limited to pre-existing and supported theories.
New developments in the human sciences are also victim to the same bias that dismisses other analyzation on controversial points in the field. Political scientists have ultimately concluded that a form of government must be necessary for the survival of a group, otherwise resulting in chaos and constant warfare, as crowned by Thomas Hobbes.
However, this commonly held belief shuts any objection down as merely theoretical and not applicable to real world societies. Some have been committed to prove otherwise, such as Peter Gelderloos in his book “Anarchy Works”, which highlights real world societies that exist without a hierarchal organization to live socially. This dismissal of new theories based on old, outdated political science in turn blocks new effective ways to restructure social life today. When things are held as inevitable, there is no challenge to them, thus not putting a hypothesis to the test.
The flaw in the scientific method thus is not in terms of the process, but rather the application. The failure on knower’s parts, to either consider or test new hypotheses, means that our understanding of the natural or human sciences can never adapt to new, previously dismissed theories, and thus change how we live in the world today. Ultimately, it may be a more beneficial aspiration to test alternative theories that structure how we understand our world, than spend all our time, money, and resources to continue to find proof for already viable ideas.
