What impact does confirmation bias have on scientific consensus?

We start our passionate project with a hypothesis, that may or may not be right down the lane. Especially human genetic infrastructure is very complicated. Let say, "I believe that mutation is the reason for cancer". Eventually we find various root causes of cancer. It could be genetic or epigenetic. I think, as a scientist, we should carry an unbiased mind. We love to see our hypothesis come true, but time to time negative results cross our path. It is not bad actually. It gives you another hypothesis to chase through or modulate. I think, it would a scholarly attitude to keep our mind open and accept all the facts, positive or negative.

You know how sometimes you only see what you want to see? That’s confirmation bias in action, and it can really mess with scientific consensus. Researchers might focus too much on data that backs up their existing beliefs, ignoring anything that contradicts them. In business strategy, this could mean overlooking critical market signals that don’t fit the company’s narrative. Peter Drucker once said, "The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence—it is to act with yesterday's logic." In the world of AI, confirmation bias can lead to algorithms that reinforce existing stereotypes instead of challenging them. The key is to be aware of this bias and actively work against it to keep our findings balanced and objective.

Let’s talk about the influence of peers. Scientists often look to their colleagues for validation, which can lead to a reinforcement of popular theories and an unintentional sidelining of new ideas. This is similar to what happens in companies where consensus-driven cultures can stifle innovation. In tech, especially in AI development, this peer influence can create an echo chamber, limiting diverse perspectives. Change before you have to. It’s crucial to create environments where challenging the status quo is not just accepted but encouraged. That’s where real innovation happens.

Together we establish a scientific theory across the globe. Without knowing each other, when we establish a scientific theory; it tells a scientific truth. We have to make sure that experimental outcomes are rock solid. When we nullify all the background noise; result should be accepted without a bias. It will align with peers, time to time. It will not a bias idea, but findings will tell the truth. Peers' presence shows that, we are not derailed brain. there are many more people exploring the same topic. In the end, it's all about findings/data. A crystal-clear data will align us with rest of the world or bifurcate.

I feel like publishing negative results is frowned upon and treated like failed experiments. It is just as useful to know what does NOT work as what does work. A lot of grants and funding is based on positive results alone.

Funding can be a tricky area. When research is funded by organizations with specific interests, there’s a subtle (or not-so-subtle) pressure to produce results that align with those interests. This is especially true in AI research, where big tech companies are major funders. The same thing can happen in business strategies, where financial backers might push for decisions that favor their short-term gains over long-term success. Transparency and independence in research are essential to avoid these pitfalls. We need to ensure that our scientific endeavors remain credible and unbiased.

To be honest, funding agencies love scientific applications whether it can create market or not. That's why fundamental science lack time to time. In our modern era of science, application is not bad at all. We create patent, money and jobs. Most of the time, it depends how you write your project. It should have a mixture of fundamental and application of science.

Public perception plays a huge role in shaping scientific research. Researchers, aware of what the public wants to hear, might unconsciously tailor their findings to match these expectations. In AI, this could lead to developing technologies that are more palatable to society rather than pushing the envelope with groundbreaking (but initially unpopular) innovations. Businesses face a similar challenge: balancing the need to respond to public demand with the drive to innovate. The best way to predict the future is to create it. Leaders need to navigate public sentiment while still driving forward with bold new ideas.

The implications of not addressing confirmation bias are pretty serious. In AI, biased algorithms could perpetuate social inequalities and lead to unethical outcomes. For businesses, strategic errors due to unchecked biases could be disastrous. Embracing a proactive approach to identifying and correcting biases will lead to more innovative, ethical, and sustainable advancements. Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. It’s all about prioritizing integrity and inclusivity to ensure a balanced and forward-looking approach.