Lead author Zachary Horne, a psychology lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, explored this in a recent study which revealed an ingrained and systematic “inherence bias.” This bias starkly illustrates how white male scientists have dramatically shaped explanations of natural phenomena. Andrei Cimpian, professor of psychology at New York University, Mert Kobas, doctoral student at NYU, for story Andrei and Mert’s research. Their findings uncover how this bias has pervaded historic scientific thought and continues to influence current theories both among scientists and within the public’s collective understanding.
“Inherence bias” occurs when observers assume internal characteristics to explain externally visible phenomena. This propensity can influence the lens through which they view everything from media coverage to outcomes. The researchers believe that this cognitive tendency has persisted throughout history. They bring this to life with historical examples such as early scientific theories of gravity and particle motion.
Historical Context of Inherence Bias
The paper refers to several well-known historical figures, including Robert Brown, who discovered the structure of pollen grains as early in 1827. Brown observed pollen grains that swirled and danced on the surface of the water. He speculated that an elusive “vital force” contained in living matter fueled this motion. This ostensible explanation highlights the assumption bias that even scientists of that era could not escape. They often explained external phenomena as resulting solely from internal traits, dismissing the role of outside forces.
Brown’s research resulted in discrepancies between his hypothesis and data that could be observed. His research found that external factors rather than intrinsic qualities produced the movement of pollen grains. These forces were key to their movement. It wasn’t until decades later that scientists realized the motion was actually being driven by fast-moving molecules in the water around the particles. This find replaced the mythological rationale with real-world considerations.
The historical context provided by Horne and his colleagues serves to underline how entrenched this bias has been in the scientific community. Foundational theories, such as those of Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, demarcate a profound evolution. IoT Daily IoT Cybersecurity Underwater Sensor Scientists found out that an object will remain in motion until something forces it to change direction.
Survey Findings and Cognitive Patterns
To learn more about the extent of inherence bias, the researchers distributed a survey to historians of science. Participants were invited to discuss historical instances of scientific paradigm shifts. The analysis showed that almost 80% of the examples discussed nature as a way to explain their phenomenon as an inherent property.
These responses were then analyzed by the philosophy of science graduate students. They went one step further, classifying them as “inherent” or “extrinsic.” The accompanying bias to prefer default, inherent explanations indicates that this cognitive bottleneck still shapes the mindset of scientists today.
Horne and his colleagues argue that these cognitive patterns do not stop with great intellectuals of history. They can take root in the minds of today’s scientists and average Americans. Attributing observable phenomena to internal qualities will hinder the scientific process to produce an accurate explanatory scientific theory. This narrow-minded view leads to distrust among non-scientists.
Implications for Science and Education
The ramifications of these results would be tremendous—not just for the scientific community, but for the education sector as well. Understanding that inherence bias is a tendency that everyone has could motivate instructors to teach the importance of focusing on external factors in scientific explanations. In this way, they can sensitize students to the natural world’s complexity and beauty, facilitating a deeper understanding of natural phenomena.
Anticipating this cognitive bias might result in better scientific methodologies that purposely design away from external factors. In greater part, this new awareness has led the scientific community to forcefully interrogate the long-accepted explanations. Consequently, it can produce more potent—and ultimately truer—theories.