Talk:Confirmation bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Featured articleConfirmation bias is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 23, 2010.
Article milestones
September 29, 2009Good article nomineeListed
May 24, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
July 6, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
July 23, 2010Today's featured articleMain Page
Current status: Featured article

Recent change to definition[edit]

@Kookaburra17: I've removed these two sentences you've added. Let's discuss them here. "The standard method of evaluating facts is to collect data, and then interpret the full set of data." It's not clear what this means. Is standard meant in a normative or descriptive sense? If it's normative but not what people do, then how is it "standard"? If it's descriptive, what is the evidence that this is how people evaluate facts? "However, if people have strong beliefs, they tend to cherry-pick only the facts that fit (confirm) their beliefs, and ignore the remainder of the data." The lead of the article is meant to summarise the article content, but this sentence contradicts it. The studies summarised in the article show people do not have this tendency. This is a folk misconception about Confirmation bias, not the scientific understanding described in the sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Martin! Confirmation bias is an important page on Wikipedia (because of the current polarisation in our rapidly changing society), and it is being viewed 2000 times per day. I appreciate your efforts to restructure the page in 2010. I share your view that critical thinking is important and that the initial summary page should be a summary of the remainder of the article. However I think this topic needs gradual restructuring again. Wikipedia is a tool for public education, and that the concepts need to be explained simply, with technical parts perhaps removed to end notes (or some other solution). The current article has too much detail and is too technical in places, and most readers will not bother to read (or understand) much of it. Even my psychology students find it a hard slog - and what about the general public? This is a long term interest of mine. We need be more explicit about the role confirmation bias plays in scientific fraud, denialism, pseudoscience and conspiracy therories (Lee McIntyre's book "The Scientific Attitude" has been an inspiration for me about that). Kookaburra17 12:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookaburra17 (talkcontribs)

This article is very well-formatted and was a great source for understanding confirmation bias. I love the detail that is put into each section, and the use of media was very helpful in understanding the material. There may be a few grammatical errors scattered throughout the article, but I plan to work through the entire article and see if I can find any to fix. Boggessh (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Bias confirmed ...[edit]

I just knew this was going to be a great article ... Face-smile.svg Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)