Written by In the academy(1), research is not always a collaborative experience, but rather, publishing is very competitive, somewhat like a World Series or Super Bowl championship game, but still different–extreme individualism rules! In competitive sports, as example, all season long, even the players on the same team compete amongst each other for a chance to start and be noticed. This makes for a very interesting tension. I call this “collaborative competition.” Likewise, one would assume that each research practitioner is working in concert with other researchers in a quest to uncover scientific truths, achieve superordinate goals(2); challenging assumptions, validate and confirm, thus, adding to the field of inquiry something new and important, a revelation or paradigm shift. The truth is, this rarely ever happens. Yes, as many of you have pointed out in prior blog posts, some researchers do develop interesting insights that help validate existing studies but, most researchers simply focus on the results that merely reflect their own research bias. And… here is the rub, researchers don’t play well together. Unlike professional team sports, researchers are biased and prefer to play only with those that agree with their findings and perspectives, (Kuhn, 1991). This is the very definition of group think and the conspiracy of mediocrity. Some scientists have observed that this particular pattern of interaction, working with only people that think alike, often leads to collaborative cheating (Ariely, 2012).
Indeed, philosopher Thomas Kuhn (1991) captures this interesting dynamic in his classic book, The Structure of Scientific Paradigms. Research bias is the seeds of group think and functional fixedness(3). How can we break away from this academic echo chamber? How and where can one find the truth? Unbiased researchers will challenge assumptions and carefully and precisely reconstruct an experiment or study to see if the results hold up over multiple trials? This is called construct validity. It rarely ever does (Lash, 1999).
The epistemic challenge for researchers is to seek the Spirit of Truth without wavering or pandering to a particular group’s perspective or bias. I believe, researchers, everyone really, tend to fall into one of two camps; 1.) group think (everyone thinks alike) or, 2.) seekers of the Truth. The later group respects the autonomy of the First Amendment, one that embraces deep-level diverse opinions, alternative perspectives and actively engaging in inspired conversations. The prior group shuts down independent thought and free speech. To illustrate this dynamic, picture the normal distribution bell curve. God loves the bell curve. Everything in God’s creation fits into the normal distribution. Take all the leaves on any tree as example. You will have a small percentage of very large leaves and a small percentage of very small even tiny leaves. Overall, the vast majority of leaves will fall into the middle of the bell curve, thus, normal distribution. But, group thinkers, want to draw a skewed curve, over representing a very small sample of the population. I’ll say it again, God loves the bell curve. Think about that profound statement. Sadly, many academics, those teaching in higher education institutions today, cluster together around group think and the functional fixedness of their own biases. They “kick out” and shame anyone that does not agree with their opinions and perspectives. This is perhaps why there is so much division between alternative perspectives on research or anything for that matter.
Remember, God loves a bell curve. What does this mean? It means that the normal distribution represents the vast majority which fall in-between either/or thinking. This is what some observers might call the “moral majority” or, “independent”. From a biblical perspective, we might recognize this as more integral. It is indeed ironic that, so called progressives, those that hold a more radical group think perspectives, fit more neatly in the extreme pinch points (ends) of the bell curve. Yet, they will argue for “inclusion” which represents the average or, normal distribution. Another example would be advocating for radical changes in the Constitution–a “living document” perspective–while at the same time arguing for “impeachment” based on the original framers intent of the document. You can’t have it both ways unless, of course, you are a liberal progressive. Unfortunately, the constructivist’s narrow-minded narrative seems to gain more traction than the truth. But, I believe people are smart and can see through this cruel ruse. Only through authentic, honest and open (AHO) inspired conversations can we have the opportunity to break free from the bondage of liberal progressive social-constructivism. We represent the next generation of research practitioners that are committed to seeking the truth. What is your perspective?
Ariely, D. (2012). The honest truth about dishonesty: How we lie to everyone–especially ourselves. New York: Harper Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1991). The structure of scientific revolutions. (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lash, S. (1999). Another modernity: A different rationality. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
- A society or institution of distinguished scholars and artists or scientists that aims to promote and maintain standards in its particular field.
- In social psychology, superordinate goals are goals that are worth completing but require two or more social groups to cooperatively achieve.
- Functional Fixedness is a cognitive bias that limits a person to use an object only in the way it is traditionally used. A concept that rooted in Gestalt psychology,
With regard to research bias, where can we find the truth?
Uncovering the truth about research bias can be challenging. Unfortunately, this is a reality we often face. Many authors, academics, content creators, and news outlets tend to present one-sided narratives that align with their agendas. This phenomenon is discussed by author Aldridge, who refers to it as “groupthink,” where everyone shares similar viewpoints.
This bias can significantly hinder individuals seeking knowledge on a particular subject, making it difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction. Such misdirection can stem from these entities. To navigate this issue, individuals should conduct multiple searches on a topic and consider various perspectives. Seeking guidance from a mentor or a church member can also be a valuable way to uncover the truth or gain a deeper understanding of the research.
Is the author of this blog (emic narrative) reflecting his own research bias or, making a “inductive,” evidence-based truth statement?
Aldridge presents a crucial evidence-based statement regarding the issues of groupthink and research, emphasizing the importance of approaching information critically.
As Christians we must strive to live and work in a way that shows that we are truly a representative for our Father and His work that He began so many years ago. Seeking and living in truth and having strong moral values and impeccable integrity is the only way to live when follow HIs example. With regards to research bias, we must find the truth by searching for it. We must find that peace of truth and follow it where every it leads us. Following research must be done by using only reputable sites that produce factual information. We look for the original documents if and when possible and use this as our starting point. Then we begin to build onto this truth by find other sources that support the information that we are working on. To further help with the research journey we share our findings, citing all of our sources so that others can start their own research journey and add to the findings.
MaShunda Cain, CCU Graduate Student
The Bible places high value on truth, integrity, and the pursuit of wisdom. Regarding being biased in research, the Bible states, “Pride leads to disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. Honesty guides good people; dishonesty destroys treacherous people” (Holy Bible, New Living Translations, 2015, Proverbs 11:2-3). Humility is essential when conducting research. A prideful attitude prioritizes being right over finding the truth, which leads to flawed conclusions.
The Bible places high value on truth, integrity, and the pursuit of wisdom. Regarding being biased in research, the Bible states, “Pride leads to disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. Honesty guides good people; dishonesty destroys treacherous people” (Holy Bible, New Living Translations, 2015, Proverbs 11:2-3). Humility is essential when conducting research. A prideful attitude prioritizes being right over finding the truth, which leads to flawed conclusions.
In the “non-believing world”, in the reality of a non-believer, the Word of God is merely considered a form of social constructivism all of itself. A social construct that forms the institution of marriage, family and laws. To Us who believe the Word is knowledge, and it is TRUTH. The Truth that our creator established actually called for us to be in “one accord and of one mind”. I agree with the writer and agree that research is bias, simply because of our humanity. I also feel that no matter how we strive within humanity to conceptualize our own truth, that truth comes from the living God. God is truth. What is “apodictic” truth? It is a type of truth that is absolutely certain and universally valid. Many have tried to prove the Word of God wrong and find it to be absolutely certain. I just can’t wait to see the day that it is universally valid, and that day is promised to us when God creates the new heaven and new earth in eternity.
Wendy Smith, CCU
3. Is the author of this blog (emic narrative) reflecting his own research bias or, making a “inductive,” evidence-based truth statement?
Understanding Emic Narrative:
According to Cambridge dictionary (n.d.), emic is defined as relating to a way of studying or describing a language or culture from the point of view of the people who use the language or live in the culture.
According to American Education (n.d.), getting the emic perspective (qualitative data) requires the researcher to:
• Experience the culture without being obtrusive; listen as much as possible; build a rapport
• respect the local culture, learn the local language, and get to know how people think while learning their local customs and norms
According to Picardi & Masick (2014), inductive reasoning is when a researcher “reviews existing literature to better understand what previous researchers have done to explore the phenomenon of interest” (p. 7). After review, a question is developed, an experiment is conducted, and results are then analyzed based on the initial question.
After rereading the blog, definitions, and several lit reviews: I believe the writer of this blog is writing from an emic narrative reflecting his own research bias. Although references have been used throughout the post, they only drive the narrative inviting the writer to add opinion and potential bias like this statement “here is the rub, researchers don’t play well together.”
1. Regarding research bias, where can we find the truth?
Katz (2019) wrote a great post on truth and evidence based and how to know what is true. He referenced the bell curve & the consistency of a pattern in reference to apples are tossed up and knowing that they will ALWAYS fall back down. Truth, Fact based on the Scientific Method?
What has been accepted by society as truth relies predominantly on the scientific method of research and evaluation but I agree with the blogger, what works for one may not work for another and as researchers we will always be seeking a new “truth.”
The truth can always be found in God. Isaiah 45:19 reminds us we find the truth in Him. “I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob’s descendants, ‘Seek me in vain.’ I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right” (NIV, 1995). This emic narrated blog, reminds me that we as humans often seek to be right rather than do right. As referenced here, it should be the expectation that research practitioners should challenge their bias and seek the apodictic truth – that which is undeniably true (as much as possible). However, it is more often that we seek to uphold our bias (be right) rather than to seek the truth (do right).
This emic narrative blog was very thought-provoking to me. As outlined in Isaiah 45:19, the truth is always found in God. “I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob’s descendants, ‘Seek me in vain.’ I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right” (NIV, 1995).
This blog reminds me that as humans we often work harder to be right than to actually do right. In the essence of this blog referencing practitioners who succumb to group think and seek to prove their own bias, they are trying to be right rather than seeking the truth and actually doing right. Even when something is not undeniably true, like apodictic truth, it seems as research practitioners, we have an obligation to seek an objective outcome in our research.
All of creation is grounded in truth because God is truth. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (KJV, John 14:6). Those who endeavor to research may not initially discover this truth, however, with many trials and the desire for truth, it will eventually be found. Gravity is an apodictic truth, meaning that it is an absolute certainty. The tides coming in and out are an apodictic truth. No matter how much you might want the results to be different, with many samples, the truth will be revealed. Think of the search for the cause of illness and the discovery of germs. Imagine now, if scientists wanted to continue to be paid for bleeding a patient and decided to engage in research bias, skewing their results away from the truth. This might be successful for a short amount of time, but as more and more samples were included in the research the ultimate truth would be evident to all. It is surprising that researchers who are looking for “truth” are willing to relinquish truth for the sake of proving themselves right. Although most researchers may have an unstated bias of what they would like to see when they form their hypothesis, truth should be the goal of every professional.
With regard to research bias, where can we find the truth?
Because of collaborative competition there will always be questions regarding individual perspectives and bias when researching specific information. I believe when people are searching for the truth they will absolutely find their own truth. When dealing with subjective terms, there isn’t always a true definition or answer. Essentially, every living person has their own truth which then leads to bias and having a bias opinion about a topic/subject would happen easily especially when you are researching for information to support something you are passionate about or are trying to find evidence for. I believe the truth lives in Christ. I believe people can investigate, research, study, and have very strict opinions about various topic however we all can save heartache, time, and effort if we seek Christ first regardless of the situation.
What is “apodictic” truth?
From what I understand, apodictic truth is when an argument or statement is absolutely true and there is no reason whatsoever to question what was said or implied. If there is something brought about in conversation or there is a situation in question but then deemed apodictic, essentially that means there is no point in questioning what is being referenced. Apodictic equals absolute truth.
With regard to research bias, where can we find the truth?
I am not certain that there ever is an absolute truth in research because everyone operates from a place of a place of bias and it is nearly impossible to completely separate that from what we do. However, the truth can lie in the actual research; the numbers and the data.
What is “apodictic” truth? Apodictic truth is defined as “expressing or of the nature of necessary truth or absolute certainty” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
The author says “Unlike professional team sports, researchers are biased and prefer to play only with those that agree with their findings and perspectives, (Kuhn, 1991). This is the very definition of group think and the conspiracy of mediocrity.” So in some ways he is being biased in his article of research bias. I don’t think we can be entirely free of bias though. The point I want to make is that each person can be aware of their biases and be open minded to another alternate truth. Each person has a lens in which they see a thing. If you have experience in a certain field and you want to see a change in that field, you are inclined to form a thesis that can move you in a direction of attaining that thing that you want to see changed and in the way that you deem it best. I think that the key to finding truth is to seek out truth. To have a drive to seek truth means that you don’t care what the small minority thinks, you keep the big picture in mind. You keep in mind the bell curve (or most of the people who would benefit from your study) and you focus in on that. Research can be biased in an environment where there is no diversity of thought. I can see the authors point that the ones who are in authority or have a place to research can skew the truth, creating a study and promoting an outcome that will benefit them in whatever they want to highlight. I can also see the other side to this. The other side to the argument of bias in academia settings is that much progress and revelation can come from an organization that values diversity of thought. The leadership of any organization has the ability to cultivate a creative place or a cancel culture place. To be a seeker of truth is the most natural thing to humans. To not seek truth is like not wanting to look at yourself in the mirror. Christians naturally lead toward truth seeking because we have come to know God as the truth. Truth is God, it is interchangeable. To a bible believing Christian apodictic truth is the basis of their faith. They believe that what God’s word says is 100 percent true and there is no error in it. As a believer in pursuit on my masters degree and working on my research I hope to let the truth lead me into truth. Only the Holy Spirit can give us the revelation, the insights, the new ideas that we seek. I believe we must let go of our biases and surrender what we don’t know so that we can gain new understanding. Society will tell us that truth is whatever you want it to be, so we must be bold as believers to risk being misunderstood or disliked. Great article to get us thinking about research bias and group think! Thank you for sharing!
The author says “Unlike professional team sports, researchers are biased and prefer to play only with those that agree with their findings and perspectives, (Kuhn, 1991). This is the very definition of group think and the conspiracy of mediocrity.” So in some ways the author is being biased in his article of research bias. To group all researchers into a place of mediocrity seems hard to prove. Each person has a lens in which they see a thing. If you have experience in a certain field and you want to see a change in that field, you are inclined to form a thesis that can move you in a direction of attaining that thing that you want to see changed and in the way that you deem it best. I think that the key to finding truth is to seek out truth. To have a drive to seek truth means that you don’t care what the small minority thinks, you keep the big picture in mind. You keep in mind the bell curve (or most of the people who would benefit from your study) and you focus in on that. Research can be biased in an environment where there is no diversity of thought. I can see the authors point that the ones who are in authority or have a place to research can skew the truth, creating a study and promoting an outcome that will benefit them in whatever they want to highlight. I can also see the other side to this. The other side to the argument of bias in academia settings is that much progress and revelation can come from an organization that values diversity of thought. The leadership of any organization has the ability to cultivate a creative place or a cancel culture place. To be a seeker of truth is the most natural thing to humans. To not seek truth is like not wanting to look at yourself in the mirror. Christians naturally lead toward truth seeking because we have come to know God as the truth. Truth is God, it is interchangeable. To a bible believing Christian apodictic truth is the basis of their faith. They believe that what God’s word says is 100 percent true and there is no error in it. As a believer in pursuit on my masters degree and working on my research I hope to let the truth lead me into truth. Only the Holy Spirit can give us the revelation, the insights, the new ideas that we seek. I believe we must let go of our biases and surrender what we don’t know so that we can gain new understanding. Society will tell us that truth is whatever you want it to be, so we must be bold as believers to risk being misunderstood or disliked. Great article to get us thinking about research bias and group think! Thank you for sharing!
John,
One could argue that bias is good when it is based on the truth. Any worldview has a built in bias that allows us to quickly and efficiently dismiss false information. I believe that the ability to dismiss inaccurate information is becoming more important as our lives are being inundated with greater amounts of information daily. This trend will only continue with the advance of technology.
Blessings
It is impossible not to bring our own bias into anything that we hear. We can’t help but be shaped by our experiences. I believe it is actually better to attempt to identify where that bias exists and be on guard for it than to pretend it isn’t there. So, in regard to finding the truth through bias, we must be aware of our own. As we research something, frequently and honestly checking for sources of personal opinion, unsubstantiated fact, or hearsay is critical. Asking others to help us to root out our blind spots even. “Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults. Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me!” (ESV Bible, 2016, Psalms 19 12-13).
Apodictic truth is “clearly provable and logically certain” (Definitions for Apodicity, n.d., Apodicity section). In a world increasingly more in step with the idea of finding no absolute truth, it would seemingly be hard not to get an argument when claiming any apodictic truth. A few decades ago the claim that a man cannot have a baby would have been considered apodictic truth. Although today that may still be true, you would certainly be challenged on that statement.
Thank you for your post. It is interesting to observe the scientism (science is god) that has been imposed on the world by people who are not scientists. Very few scientists are atheists. Most scientists will see God in everything. It is therefore difficult to separate God from science. What really separates us is our perspectives or worldviews. Thank again for your post.
With regard to research bias, truth is found only through open conversation and collaboration between researchers/academics/scholars, in addition to acknowledging our bias before beginning research. It is imperative that we share ideas or thought processes and views with one another, especially if they are different from traditional views. However, this only works if we are willing to listen to the other side as well.
“Apodictic” refers to being without a doubt, most certainly and indisputably true. It means conclusive. There are very few things in today’s society which all people agree on. I would say that few people would argue against the statement “the Earth is round”. To be considered apodictic, I would assume proof is needed. I suppose certain smaller networks could hold certain things to be apodictic, non-refutable and this would be the case only for the certain group. For example, Christians would state that it is an apodictic truth that God created the heavens and the Earth (Holy Bible, New International Version, 1973/2011, Gen 1:1). The general population would likely need proof for something to be considered an apodictic truth.
Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Zondervan. (Original work published 1973)
Merriam-Webster. (2022). Apodictic. In Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Retrieved October 11, 2022 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apodictic
1. With regard to research bias, where can we find the truth?
In research, the truth is present, it takes commitment to seek the truth, regardless of how it either confirms and denies your question. Dr. Aldridge asks the question if “do we create knowledge or do we merely discover what is already there?” (Aldridge, 2019). If knowledge is already there, then is the question, how we interpret the truth? The blog mentioned the validity of researchers and their tendency to confirm their own bias, so should we expect to receive or find the truth? At some point, do we assume a level of risk that a wider percentage of the information is not true or is unduly biased? As a truth seeker, a researcher of The Gospel, we rely on and trust that God will reveal those things that are hidden. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open” (NIV, Luke 8:17).
2. What is “apodictic” truth?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defined apodictic as “expressing or the nature of necessary truth or absolute certainty” (www.meriam-webster.com, 2021). The apodictic truth would be the absolute truth. There are not many things that are considered absolute truth, the existence of something or someone, the scientific calculations or solutions, and our faith in our God, His Son and The Holy Spirit. While our faith in God may waiver at times, His faithfulness and mercy is apodictic.
Holy Bible: New International Version (2011). Biblica
Merriam-Webster. (2021). Apodictic. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apodictic#:~:text=%3A%20expressing%20or%20of%20the%20nature%20of%20necessary%20truth%20or%20absolute%20certainty.
1. With regard to research bias, where can we find the truth?
In research, the truth is present, it takes commitment to seek the truth, regardless of how it either confirms and denies your question. Dr. Aldridge asks the question if “do we create knowledge or do we merely discover what is already there?” (Aldridge, 2019). If knowledge is already there, then is the question, how we interpret the truth? The blog mentioned the validity of researchers and their tendency to confirm their own bias, so should we expect to receive or find the truth? At some point, do we assume a level of risk that a wider percentage of the information is not true or is unduly biased? As a truth seeker, a researcher of The Gospel, we rely on and trust that God will reveal those things that are hidden. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open” (NIV, Luke 8:17).
2. What is “apodictic” truth?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defined apodictic as “expressing or the nature of necessary truth or absolute certainty” (www.meriam-webster.com, 2021). The apodictic truth would be the absolute truth. There are not many things that are considered absolute truth, the existence of something or someone, the scientific calculations or solutions, and our faith in our God, His Son and The Holy Spirit. While our faith in God may waiver at times, His faithfulness and mercy is apodictic.
Mina Lively
Reference:
Holy Bible: New International Version (2011). Biblica
Merriam-Webster. (2021). Apodictic. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apodictic#:~:text=%3A%20expressing%20or%20of%20the%20nature%20of%20necessary%20truth%20or%20absolute%20certainty.
With regard to research bias, where can we find the truth?
In a world where so much of what we see and believe is biased, how do we decide what actually IS truth? For the true believers of extreme views, the truth is what they believe it to be. But if we also accept that “God loves a bell curve”, as stated in the article, then the truth may lie at the apex of the bell curve, or somewhere within the center/majority/norm that is forms the bell. In short, and I am playing devil’s advocate here, truth is in the eye of the beholder, or in this case the researcher. When I taught high school students who were going in to the healthcare field, we would actually have discussions about the biases of research studies. I was trying to teach them not to take everything at face value, and to investigate the validity of research based on what the researcher was trying to prove, sample size, “legitimacy” of the research design, etc.
What is “apodictic truth”?
Apodictic truth is truth that is held to be certain and indisputable. Unfortunately as a culture we have a developed a common theme of questioning everything and believing that everyone’s individual truth is the acceptable whole truth. Much like a group of blind men describing an elephant by describing the part that they feel closest to them, many times people have only a part of the truth. While they are correct for what they are describing, they are missing out on the whole picture. I believe that the whole picture is only revealed in the Creator, for whom there are no biases, only truth (although as a culture, we again bias the perception of God according to what we know).
Truth comes first God. John 8:32 refers to knowing the truth, and it being the catalyst to freedom. Now to know the truth means to know God. But to know not only means to have knowledge of, but also take action with this knowledge. In research, there is freedom in looking at all perspectives. There are alternatives to any “truth”. To be a true seeker of the truth, then it is important to look for the objective answer to what one is looking for. I think this can be hard, as the author alludes to because researchers are seeking to gain truth that matches their ideas. I think this then raises the question of are we researching just to fulfill our own pride or to help further others? I think the answer is clear, as referring back to the ultimate truth, which honors God.
I think the author is providing some examples of inductive and evidence to support their argument, but as a researcher there are some levels of bias in the argument. I think bias cannot fully be removed, because in the end this platform is seeking to comment or promote a specific idea. An idea of the author’s choice and what is felt to be shared for their audience. Which goes back to the original idea of why researchers do what they do. They want to gain knowledge in order to be able to present their stance. Which in the end I think it does provide for open conversation and dialogue on both sides.
With regard to research bias, where can we find the truth?
I agree with the author that God is the ultimate purveyor of truth, and while researchers attempt to remain unbiased, there is really no effective way to keep our personal views and biases out of our discovery. While outliers exist in nearly any phenomenon you can think of, most research will find many more points within the normal distribution in almost every case.
What is “apodictic truth”?
Apodictic truth is explained as ultimate truth: truth that cannot be altered or disputed.
“This word comes from a Greek verb meaning to demonstrate, and it applies to things that have been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt.” https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/apodictic
Bias in research is an interesting topic of which we must all be aware. This is not only to conduct valid truth-seeking research, but to also ensure we are receiving information into our own minds in a careful manner. Here, the author is being cautious not to project bias through his own words and instead is providing us with a challenge induced by his experience in research development. The author reminds readers there is only one real source of the truth and infers that all other presentations must be viewed as a ruse unless proven to be apodictic. Apodictic truth exists when there is zero doubt that it is true. Today, this doubt or certainty is clouded by new variables such as social technology.
With regard to research bias, where can we find the truth?
Finding truth lies in the mind of the beholder. That being said, can we ever deduce down to absolute or ultimate truth understanding that all humans view “truth” through their subjective lens? This lens is altered and shaped by preferences, lived experiences, belief systems, exposure, and willingness to embrace intellectual diversity. Research bias is exactly that, bias based on the mind and intent of the researcher. As academic-natured people, the best we can do is promote intellectual diversity in research. That is, encouraging one another to take a multiplicity approach, presenting all ideas and results, even those that may not align with our chosen answer as truth.
What is “apodictic truth”?
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, apodictic truth is “expressing or of the nature of necessary truth or absolute certainty” (2020). This means that the truth is absolutely, without doubt, true. Relating this back to research bias, is it possible to have apodictic truth? How do we control all possible variables to ensure our results are universally truth and applicable? I believe the best we can do is generalize and leave room for further study (again, promoting intellectual diversity).
Reference:
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Apodictic. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apodictic
With regard to research bias, where can we find the truth?
I believe this is where individual truth pokes its head out and proclaims what the reader, researcher or topic proclaim to be truth. You point out that there are many that would seek the inclusion of their skewed view, or “pinched end” of the bell curve, into the normative, and statistically speaking, this is mathematically possible as the curve can easily be manipulated by both parties, or numerous parties, involved. Through selection of bias measurements, researchers can share results that seem to be of the majority when in reality may only represent a small portion of the topic. How can we determine what the normative should actually be? Those seeking to critically analyze the data provided by researchers would need to examine all involved parts to determine where credibility and truth may lie. Again, this may be influenced by researcher bias, yet through a meta-analysis of large amounts of data on the topic a clearer picture can be seen. Still, with the introduction of projects like Wikipedia, we can see how misinformation can be shared easily and accepted as truth or fact. Even approaching subjects with a Biblical worldview begins to put a bias reading into results or information. Each observer of the research or data will need to determine what they hold as truth, and thus the qualifications for truth in research, and statistics, I fear will always have a bias undertone.
What is “apodictic” truth?
Apodictic truth is that which many believe to be self-evident or a necessary truth. This is evident in areas like gravity where gravity must be present, or we would not be able to maintain our grounding on the planet. Or, looking at a series of cause and effect situations; I put my hand in a fire, it gets burned.
Is the author of this blog (emic narrative) reflecting his own research bias or, making a “inductive,” evidence-based truth statement?
I believe the author attempts to facilitate a non-bias assessment in the statements concerning bias research through offering the varying views of researchers studying that very subject. However, bias thought and opinion still expose itself in the manner of trusting that “God loves the bell curve”. The author definitively takes a stance that supports the normative in research that develops and supports the normative found in the bell yet seems to ignore the possibility that the bell was originally created from a bias approach to the existing research. I feel that once a direction is decided, outside or opposing views may be left out both intentionally and accidentally to maintain this accepted normative making it difficult to introduce new and different options and opinions and discoveries at times.
Thank you for your thoughtful, balanced, edifying and informed post.
With regard to research bias, where can we find the truth?
I’ve thought a lot about bias in research, and so to biased reporting. To a certain extent, the way things are displayed tends to be skewed at very least slightly in one direction or another. I’ve come to the conclusion that truth can only be found through the honest search for truth. Jeremiah 29:13 says “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart” (NIV). Being honest about our motives tells us a lot about what we will find. If you are after the truth, just like if you are after a relationship with the Lord, you will find it. But you have to be committed to seeking out the actual truth. Delving into this, I would have to assume that an honest examination of a variety of different datapoints would lead you closer to the truth, and give you a better understanding of which researchers data was ‘out of line’ with what may be more accurately reported elsewhere. In some cases too, however, you must evaluate the sources for inherent motives for bias. You could find a similar datapoint across a variety of sources, and this could seem to prove consistency (which you might assume is truth), but then realize that the companies providing that datapoint are all being funded by the same foundation for this research.
What is “apodictic” truth?
Apodictic truth is like one-hundred percent certainty. To call something an apodictic truth is to know that it is. In many cases, especially in research, it is not possible to reach this fullest certainty. Often you can only state that you believe something to be true.
I enjoyed the thought provoking article on research bias. The optimistic idealist in me want’s to believe that research bias doesn’t exist in academia or in university institutions. Surely this is where the brightest most creative most open minded people end up in their careers right? Like most of us already know, we live in a time in a cancel culture time of history. The religion of the day is if you don’t think exactly like me you are kicked out of the club and cannot participate with us. Group think distorts the truth because in it you cannot seek out truth. If you are thinking like everyone else you do not have the ability to question what is. The beauty of truth is that you can question is, many different ways, in different times, with different perspectives and it comes back as true. The God of the bible says he is the only truth. This would be a Christian’s understanding of what apodictic truth is. We believe that God’s word is 100 percent true, it can be verified in history, it can be believed, and it can be measured with many people attesting to this truth and verifying it over centuries. The author points out an interesting point, that “everything in God’s creation fits into the normal distribution”, this is where the majority of us lie. Most of us do share a knowledge of the truth. There are only a few that skew the truth, but they are so few in number that it cannot dispute the truth. The point that that small curve over represents a small sample of the population is the most interesting point of this article. If bias is created by group think and to be in a research job you must think like everyone else, then this leaves a huge under-represented population of society that can be represented truthfully. I believe we find truth through searching for it. In the word of God it says that the Holy Spirit motivates us to seek God out, because he longs to be found. I would argue that truth is a person, and he is moving us in our innermost being to seek him out for the sake of advancing truth in the world.