Objectivity in research.

"I have never been impressed by the argument that as complete objectivity is impossible... (as, of course, it is), one might as well let one's sentiments run loose. [T]hat is like saying that as a perfectly aseptic environment is impossible, one might as well conduct surgery in a sewer." -- Clifford Geertz

Can you trust other researchers to be objective?

[Discuss the tendency to preferentially cite research that supports your position]

[Discuss financial conflicts of interest.]

[Discuss tendency to cite statistically significant rather than clinically significant results in abstract.]

Can you yourself ever be truly objective?

It is interesting and amusing to find situations where two people read the same article and come up with different conclusions.

The STATS newsletter, http://www.stats.org/, notes an amusing contrast of headlines about a recent journal article:

"Prematurity's Effects Linger in Adults; Babies Born Early May Confront Lifelong Problems, Researchers Say" -- Washington Post, Jan. 17

"Tiniest Babies Show Success As Youths in Spite of Hurdles" -- The New York Times, same day.

As quoted in http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0202/point.htm.

Clearly, two journalists read the same publication and interviewed the same authors and came up with opposite conclusions. This happens a lot, especially for issues that are emotionally charged.

Is it possible to read and interpret journal articles objectively? I believe so, for the most part, although there will always be some room for subjectivity. There are several things that you should look for in judging a journal article. These things are reasonably objective and easy to determine.

This webpage was written by Steve Simon on (unknown date), edited by Steve Simon, and was last modified on 2008-07-08. This page needs minor revisions. Category: Statistical evidence