Draft version 1.7 beta — Revised October 24 2026
← Return to the table in Chapter 4, § 5
Bias in reporting the interpretations or conclusions
A topic page linked from Chapter 4, § 5, Examples of Reported Violations of Enforceable Ethics Codes.
Definition
Some of the different types of bias are discussed in Chapter 3, section 3.2. There, I asserted that bias distorts the scientific process by negatively impacting a scientist's objectivity. You should be particularly vigilant about avoiding confirmation bias1.
In The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper wrote 2
The point is that, whenever we propose a solution to a problem, we ought to try as hard as we can to overthrow our solution, rather than defend it. Few of us, unfortunately, practice this precept; but other people, fortunately, will supply the criticism for us if we fail to supply it ourselves.
In the context of applied geology, where there might be limited (if any) opportunities for your interpretations or conclusions to be critically assessed by other competent and informed geoscientists, the responsibility to be skeptical of your interpretations and conclusions remains with you. Of course, the consequences for interpretations and conclusions that are wrong are also your responsibility. Returning to Popper, 3
But just because it is our aim to establish theories as well as we can, we must test them as severely as we can; that is, we must try to find fault with them, we must try to falsify them. Only if we cannot falsify them in spite of our best efforts can we say that they have stood up to severe tests. This is the reason why the discovery of instances which confirm a theory means very little if we have not tried, and failed, to discover refutations. For if we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favour of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted. In order to make the method of selection by elimination work, and to ensure that only the fittest theories survive, their struggle for life must be made severe.
Relevant provisions in geoethics codes
AGI – § 1.3; GSA – § 3.1a.
Code Abbreviations
- AGI — American Geosciences Institute, AGI Guidelines for Ethical Professional Conduct (2015), Link to current document
- GSA — Geological Society of America, GSA Code of Ethics & Professional Conduct (2023), Link to current document.
Notes and References
1 Confirmation Bias, in Ethics Unwrapped: University of Texas–Austin, McCombs School of Business, accessed October 24, 2026 via ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/confirmation-bias
2 Popper, K.R., 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery [English edition of 1935 German original]: London, Routledge Classics, 513 p., ISBN 9780415278430; accessed October 24, 2026, via philomatica.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Popper1934.pdf; quoted sentence is from p. XIX.
3 Popper, K.R., 1957, The Poverty of Historicism: Boston, MA, The Beacon Press, 166 p., quote from p. 133-134 (n96); accessed October 24, 2026, via the Internet Archive at archive.org/details/karl-r.-popper-the-poverty-of-historicism/page/n95/mode/1up?q=%22refutations%22