Section I

I N T RO D U C T I O N TO LO G I C

Etymologically logic is the science of ‘logos’ which is the Greek word to mean ‘discourse’ or ‘thought’.
The term thought as in the sense of logic refers to the process of inferential thinking.

According to I.M Copi, “Logic is the study of the methods and principles that distinguish correct from
incorrect reasoning.”

Logic is often defined as the science of the laws of thought. Logic is also defined as the science of
reasoning.

According J.N.Keynes, “Logic is the science which investigates the general principles of valid thought.”

The main task of logic is to distinguish between good and bad reasoning. In logic we learn a lot of new
things. The study of logic firstly makes us realize the illogical statements or our illogical thinking that we
use in our day to day life .In logic we also learns a lot of new concepts. The basics that we learn are 1)
Arguments 2) Validity of these arguments 3)What is form and content 4)Form and content of
arguments 5)Truth and Falsity 6)Truth Tables(long and short truth tables) 7)Truth functions 8)Truth
values 9)Rules of inference and rules of replacement 9)How to argue logically 10)Traditional logic 11)
Predicate logic 12)It teaches us to reason correctly and so on..

Reason has application in all spheres of human affairs. Study of logic has application in many in many
important fields like Mathematics, Philosophy, Science, Law, Computer science, Education and also in
our day to day life. Study of logic can strengthen intellectual skills that have a wide and effective uses.
Some important benefits of studying logic are sharpened ability to express ideas clearly and concisely,
increased skill of defining terms as well as rise in ability to formulate articles and analyze them. Solving a
murder mystery also involves logic in it. A businessman also uses logic to foresee the trends of his
business, as a housewife or a home maker judges the price of the vegetables, as a student judges the
questions which are likely to be asked etc. Logic also helps us in finding out fallacies. For e.g.: when we
say “All men are not fit “it conveys that ‘not a single man is fit” when the fact is that the statement
means “some men are not fit.” Logic helps us in systematic way of thinking and clarity of thought makes
us more efficient not only in our professional life as lawyers or orators but most importantly in our day
to day life. Logic also helps us understand hypothesis, cause, effect, causal relationship etc. Now as we
know what logic is all about, let us understand the topic (comparative analysis between the observer
and the experimenter) and how is the topic related to logic.

Section II
I N T RO D U C T I O N TO TO P I C : B I AS I N R E S EA RC H
Research is defined as a careful consideration of study regarding a particular concern or a problem using
scientific methods. According to the American sociologist Earl Robert Babbie, “Research is a systematic
inquiry to describe, explain, predict and control the observed phenomenon. Research involves inductive
and deductive methods.”

Inductive research methods are used to analyze the observed phenomenon whereas; deductive
methods are used to verify the observed phenomenon. Inductive approaches are associated
with qualitative research and deductive methods are more commonly associated with quantitative
research.

One of the most important aspects of research is the statistics associated with it, conclusion or result. It
is about the “thought” that goes behind the research. Research is conducted with a purpose to
understand:

What do organizations or businesses really want to find out?

What are the processes that need to be followed to chase the idea?

What are the arguments that need to be built around a concept?

What is the evidence that will be required that people believe in the idea or concept?

Characteristics of Research
1. A systematic approach is followed in research. Rules and procedures are an integral part of research
that set the objective of a research process. Researchers need to practice ethics and code of conduct
while making observations or drawing conclusions.

2. RESEARCH IS BASED ON LOGICAL REASONING AND INVOLVES BOTH INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE METHODS.

3. The data or knowledge that is derived is in real time, actual observations in the natural settings.

4. There is an in-depth analysis of all the data collected from research so that there are no anomalies
associated with it.

5. Research creates a path for generating new questions. More research opportunity can be generated
from existing research.

6. Research is analytical in nature. It makes use of all the available data so that there is no ambiguity in
inference.

7. Accuracy is one of the important characters of research, the information that is obtained while
conducting the research should be accurate and true to its nature. For example, research conducted in a
controlled environment like a laboratory. Here accuracy is measured of instruments used, calibrations,
and the final result of the experiment.

Critical thinking is a process of evaluation that uses logic to separate truth from falsehood, and
reasonable from unreasonable beliefs. If you want to better evaluate the various claims, ideas, and
arguments you encounter, you need a better understanding of basic logic and the process of critical
thinking.

Logic is not a matter of opinion: When it comes to evaluating arguments, there are specific principles
and criteria that you should use. If you use those principles and criteria, then you are using logic; if
you aren’t, then you are not justified in claiming to use logic or be logical. This is important because
sometimes people don’t realize that what sounds reasonable isn’t necessarily logical. This reasoning
process—using principals of logic in your reasoning, thinking, and arguments—is critical to research.

However the most logical person will also fail in his research if he is carried away by his biases.
And that is what my topic is. The role of bias in research, both, experiment and observation.
And if we can be completely free from biases.

Section III
E X P E R I M E N T AS A R E S EA RC H M E T H O D

The term experiment may seem to be associated with the image of a chemist surrounded
by bubbling tubes and other related items. Traditionally, experiments have been used by
physical and behavioral researchers to a greater extent compared to business scientists.
Nevertheless, experiments research can be effectively used in businesses in order to
analyze cause and affect relationships. Deductive approach is mainly used for experiments
research in order to test hypotheses.
Experiments are usually used in causal studies. Specifically, experiment researches
involve manipulation with an independent variable in order to assess its impacts on
dependent variables. Changes in price levels on volume of sales can be mentioned as a
basic example for experiment. In this specific example, price can be specified as
independent variable, whereas sales would be dependent variable.
The nature of relationships between two variables in causal experimental researches
may be divided into three categories: symmetrical, reciprocal and asymmetrical.
What Are the Advantages of Experimental Research?

1. It provides researchers with a high level of control.

By being able to isolate specific variables, it becomes possible to determine if a
potential outcome is viable. Each variable can be controlled on its own or in different
combinations to study what possible outcomes are available for a product, theory, or
idea as well. This provides a tremendous advantage in an ability to find accurate results.
2. There is no limit to the subject matter or industry involved.
Experimental research is not limited to a specific industry or type of idea. It can be used
in a wide variety of situations. Teachers might use experimental research to determine if
a new method of teaching or a new curriculum is better than an older system.
Pharmaceutical companies use experimental research to determine the viability of a
new product.
3. The results of experimental research can be duplicated.
Experimental research is straightforward, basic form of research that allows for its
duplication when the same variables are controlled by others. This helps to promote the
validity of a concept for products, ideas, and theories. This allows anyone to be able to
check and verify published results, which often allows for better results to be achieved,
because the exact steps can produce the exact results.
4. Natural settings can be replicated with faster speeds.
When conducting research within a laboratory environment, it becomes possible to
replicate conditions that could take a long time so that the variables can be tested
appropriately. This allows researchers to have a greater control of the extraneous
variables which may exist as well, limiting the unpredictability of nature as each variable
is being carefully studied.
5. Experimental research allows cause and effect to be determined.
The manipulation of variables allows for researchers to be able to look at various cause-
and-effect relationships that a product, theory, or idea can produce. It is a process
which allows researchers to dig deeper into what is possible, showing how the various
variable relationships can provide specific benefits. In return, a greater understanding of
the specifics within the research can be understood, even if an understanding of why
that relationship is present isn’t presented to the researcher.
What Are the Disadvantages of Experimental Research?

1. Results are highly subjective due to the possibility of human error.

Because experimental research requires specific levels of variable control, it is at a high
risk of experiencing human error at some point during the research. Any error, whether
it is systemic or random, can reveal information about the other variables and that would
eliminate the validity of the experiment and research being conducted.
2. Experimental research can create situations that are not realistic.
The variables of a product, theory, or idea are under such tight controls that the data
being produced can be corrupted or inaccurate, but still seem like it is authentic. This
can work in two negative ways for the researcher. First, the variables can be controlled
in such a way that it skews the data toward a favorable or desired result. Secondly, the
data can be corrupted to seem like it is positive, but because the real-life environment is
so different from the controlled environment, the positive results could never be
achieved outside of the experimental research.
3. There may be ethical or practical problems with variable control.
It might seem like a good idea to test new pharmaceuticals on animals before humans
to see if they will work, but what happens if the animal dies because of the experimental
research? Or what about human trials that fail and cause injury or death? Experimental
research might be effective, but sometimes the approach has ethical or practical
complications that cannot be ignored. Sometimes there are variables that cannot be
manipulated as it should be so that results can be obtained.
4. Experimental research does not provide an actual explanation.
Experimental research is an opportunity to answer a Yes or No question. It will either
show you that it will work or it will not work as intended. One could argue that partial
results could be achieved, but that would still fit into the “No” category because the
desired results were not fully achieved. The answer is nice to have, but there is no
explanation as to how you got to that answer. Experimental research is unable to
answer the question of “Why” when looking at outcomes.
5. Participants can be influenced by their current situation.
Human error isn’t just confined to the researchers. Participants in an experimental
research study can also be influenced by extraneous variables. There could be
something in the environment, such an allergy, which creates a distraction. In a
conversation with a researcher, there may be a physical attraction that changes the
responses of the participant. Even internal triggers, such as a fear of enclosed spaces,
could influence the results that are obtained. It is also very common for participants to
“go along” with what they think a researcher wants to see instead of providing an honest
response.
.

Methods: Five Steps

Experimental research can be roughly divided into five phases:

Identifying a research problem

The process starts by clearly identifying the problem you want to study and
considering what possible methods will affect a solution. Then you choose the method
you want to test, and formulate a hypothesis to predict the outcome of the test.
For example, you may want to improve student essays, but you don't believe that
teacher feedback is enough. You hypothesize that some possible methods for writing
improvement include peer work shopping, or reading more example essays. Favoring
the former, your experiment would try to determine if peer work shopping improves
writing in high school seniors. You state your hypothesis: peer work shopping prior to
turning in a final draft will improve the quality of the student's essay.

Planning an experimental research study

The next step is to devise an experiment to test your hypothesis. In doing so, you
must consider several factors. For example, how generalizable do you want your end
results to be? Do you want to generalize about the entire population of high school
seniors everywhere, or just the particular population of seniors at your specific
school? This will determine how simple or complex the experiment will be. The
amount of time funding you have will also determine the size of your experiment.
Continuing the example from step one, you may want a small study at one school
involving three teachers, each teaching two sections of the same course. The
treatment in this experiment is peer work shopping. Each of the three teachers will
assign the same essay assignment to both classes; the treatment group will
participate in peer work shopping, while the control group will receive only teacher
comments on their drafts.
Conducting the experiment

At the start of an experiment, the control and treatment groups must be selected.
Whereas the "hard" sciences have the luxury of attempting to create truly equal
groups, educators often find themselves forced to conduct their experiments based on
self-selected groups, rather than on randomization. As was highlighted in the Basic
Concepts section, this makes the study a quasi-experiment, since the researchers
cannot control all of the variables.
For the peer work shopping experiment, let's say that it involves six classes and three
teachers with a sample of students randomly selected from all the classes. Each
teacher will have a class for a control group and a class for a treatment group. The
essay assignment is given and the teachers are briefed not to change any of their
teaching methods other than the use of peer work shopping. You may see here that
this is an effort to control a possible variable: teaching style variance.

Analyzing the data

The fourth step is to collect and analyze the data. This is not solely a step where you
collect the papers, read them, and say your methods were a success. You must show
how successful. You must devise a scale by which you will evaluate the data you
receive, therefore you must decide what indicators will be, and will not be,
important.
Continuing our example, the teachers' grades are first recorded, and then the essays
are evaluated for a change in sentence complexity, syntactical and grammatical
errors, and overall length. Any statistical analysis is done at this time if you choose to
do any. Notice here that the researcher has made judgments on what signals
improved writing. It is not simply a matter of improved teacher grades, but a matter
of what the researcher believes constitutes improved use of the language.

Writing the paper/presentation describing the findings

Once you have completed the experiment, you will want to share findings by
publishing academic paper (or presentations). These papers usually have the following
format, but it is not necessary to follow it strictly. Sections can be combined or not
included, depending on the structure of the experiment, and the journal to which you
submit your paper.

 Abstract: Summarize the project: its aims, participants, basic methodology,

results, and a brief interpretation.
 Introduction: Set the context of the experiment.
 Review of Literature: Provide a review of the literature in the specific area of
study to show what work has been done. Should lead directly to the author's
purpose for the study.
 Statement of Purpose: Present the problem to be studied.
 Participants: Describe in detail participants involved in the study; e.g., how
many, etc. Provide as much information as possible.
  Materials and Procedures: Clearly describe materials and procedures. Provide
enough information so that the experiment can be replicated, but not so much
information that it becomes unreadable. Include how participants were chosen,
the tasks assigned them, how they were conducted, how data were evaluated,
etc.
 Results: Present the data in an organized fashion. If it is quantifiable, it is
analyzed through statistical means. Avoid interpretation at this time.
 Discussion: After presenting the results, interpret what has happened in the
experiment. Base the discussion only on the data collected and as objective an
interpretation as possible. Hypothesizing is possible here.
 Limitations: Discuss factors that affect the results. Here, you can speculate
how much generalization, or more likely, transferability, is possible based on
results. This section is important for quasi-experimentation, since a quasi-
experiment cannot control all of the variables that might affect the outcome of
a study. You would discuss what variables you could not control.
 Conclusion: Synthesize all of the above sections.
 References: Document works cited in the correct format for the field.

Observation
Observation, as the name implies, is a way of collecting data through observing. Observation
data collection method is classified as a participatory study, because the researcher has to
immerse herself in the setting where her respondents are, while taking notes and/or recording.
Observation as a data collection method can be structured or unstructured. In structured or
systematic observation, data collection is conducted using specific variables and according to a
pre-defined schedule. Unstructured observation, on the other hand, is conducted in an open and
free manner in a sense that there would be no pre-determined variables or objectives.
Advantages of observation data collection method include direct access to research phenomena,
high levels of flexibility in terms of application and generating a permanent record of phenomena
to be referred to later. At the same time, observation method is disadvantaged with longer time
requirements, high levels of observer bias, and impact of observer on primary data, in a way that
presence of observer may influence the behavior of sample group elements.
It is important to note that observation data collection method may be associated with certain
ethical issues. Fully informed consent of research participant(s) is one of the basic ethical
considerations to be adhered to by researchers. At the same time, the behavior of sample group
members may change with negative implications on the level of research validity if they are
notified about the presence of the observer.
This delicate matter needs to be addressed by consulting with dissertation supervisor, and
commencing observation primary data collection process only after ethical aspects of the issue
have been approved by the supervisor.
Advantages of Observation:
(1) Simplest Method:
Observation is probably the most common and the simplest method of data collection. It does not
require much technical knowledge. Although scientific controlled observation requires some
technical skill of the researcher, still it is easier than other methods. Everybody in this world
observes many things in their daily life. A little training can make a person perfect, to observe
his surroundings.

(2) Useful for Framing Hypothesis:

Observation is one of the main bases of formulating hypothesis. By observing a phenomenon
continuously, the researcher may get well acquainted with the observed. He came to know about
their habits, likes, dislikes, problems, perception, different activities and so many other things.
All these help him a lot to form a hypothesis on them. Any researcher, therefore, has to be a good
observer.

(3) Greater Accuracy:

In other methods like interview, questionnaire etc., the researcher has to depend on information
provided by the respondents. So these are indirect methods and here the investigator does not
have any means to examine the accuracy of the data supplied by them. But in observation the
observer can directly check the accuracy from the observed. He can apply various devices to test
the reliability of their behavior. So very often the data collected through observation is more
reliable than these collected through interview or questionnaire.

(4) Observation is the Only Appropriate Tool for Certain Cases:

Observation can deal with phenomena which are not capable of giving verbal information about
their behavior, feeling and activities simply for the reason that they cannot speak e.g. infants or
animals. Observation is indispensable for studies on infants who can neither understand the
quarries of the researcher nor express themselves clearly. In the case of animals observation is
the only way out. For deaf and dumb persons, for serious cases of abnormality or mad persons,
for non-cooperative persons, for too shy persons and for persons who do not understand the
language of researcher, observation will be the only appropriate tool.

(5) Independent of People’s Willingness to Report:

Observation does not require the willingness of the people to provide various information about
them. Often some respondents do not like to speak about themselves to an outsider. Some people
do not have time or required skill to provide important information to the researcher. Although
observation cannot always overcome such problems, still relatively speaking it requires less
active co-operation and willingness of respondents. Observation is ever possible without the
knowledge of the respondents.

Limitations of Observation:
(1) Some of the Occurrences may not be Open to Observation:
There are many personal behaviors or secret activities which are not open for observation. For
example, no couple will allow the researcher to observe their sexual activities. In most of the
cases people do not allow the outsider to study their activities.
 (2) Not all Occurrences Lend Themselves to Observational Study:
Most of the social phenomenon is abstract in nature. For example, love, affection, feeling and
emotion of parents towards their children are not open to our senses and also cannot be
quantified by observational techniques. The researcher may employ other methods like case
study; interview etc. to study such phenomena.

(3) Lack of Reliability:

Because social phenomena cannot be controlled or used for laboratory experiments,
generalizations made by observation method are not very reliable. The relative-ness of the social
phenomena and the personal bias of the observer again create difficulty for making valid
generalization in observation. P.V. Young remarks that in observation, no attempt is made to use
instruments of precision to check the accuracy of the phenomenon.

(4) Faulty Perception:

Observation is a highly technical job. One is never sure that what he is observing is the same as it
appears to his eyes. Two persons may judge the same phenomena differently. One person may
find something meaningful and useful from a situation but the other may find nothing from it.
Only those observers who are having the technical knowledge about the observation can make
scientific observation.

(5) Personal Bias of the Observer:

The personal bias, personal view or looking at things in a particular way often creates obstacle
for making valid generalization. The observer may have his own ideas of right and wrong or he
may have different pre-conceptions regarding an event which kills the objectivity in social
research.

(6) Inadequate Method:

According to P.V. Young, “the full answers cannot be collected by observation alone”. Therefore
many suggested that observation must be supplemented by other methods also.

(7) Difficulty in Checking Validity:

Checking the validity of observation is always difficult. Many of the phenomena of observation
cannot be defined with sufficient precision and does not help in drawing a valid generalization.
The lack of competence of the observer may hamper validity and reliability of observation.

How to Conduct Observations for Research

1. Identify Objective
Determine what you want to observe and why. Are looking to see how students respond to a new
environment? How customers interact with employees? How bosses interact with subordinates?
When conducting observations, you are trying to learn habits, patterns, behaviors, reactions, and
general information about people in a particular environment to better understand what they do
and, hopefully eventually, why they do it (though observations alone often won’t tell you the
“why”).
2. Establish Recording Method
to make observations most effective, it’s important that you minimize or eliminate any disruptive
or unfamiliar devices into the environment you wish to observe. For example, it is often least
effective to video record observations in situations where the people being observed know they
are being filmed (but it’s usually unethical to film without telling them. Note-taking is the most
common method, though in some public spaces you can take photographs, audio recordings, and
other methods.
3. Develop Questions and Techniques
determine whether you are conducting an informal or a formal observation (see explanations to
the far right.) Knowing your objective, determine if there are specific questions you have or if
you are going in completely open-minded. What you hope to learn will help you know what
specifically to look for. Be prepared when entering an observation space by having a sound
understanding of the type of information you are trying learn.

4. Observe and Take Notes

Visit the space you are hoping to get information from. Be as unobtrusive as possible, taking
notes, photographs, audio, and film, only where it is allowed, you have permission, and it makes
sense for the research without disrupting the environment. If you are doing formal observations,
will you need to code certain behaviors, actions, words, visuals, and other observed data?

5. Analyze Behaviors and Inferences

separate the difference between what you observed (which are factual behaviors) and why what
you observed happened. Typically, to make some sense of your observed data, you will need to
interview people in the environment you are observing, either during the observation itself, or
afterwards. Make connections between interactions, responses, behaviors, and other phenomena.

Section IV
Bias an obstacle in research (experiment and observation)

Bias is any trend or deviation from the truth in data collection, data analysis, interpretation and
publication which can cause false conclusions. Bias can occur either intentionally or
unintentionally. Intention to introduce bias into someone’s research is immoral. Nevertheless,
considering the possible consequences of a biased research, it is almost equally irresponsible to
conduct and publish a biased research unintentionally.
Research bias, also called experimenter bias, is a process where the scientists performing the
research influence the results, in order to portray a certain outcome. Some bias in research
arises from experimental error and failure to take into accounts all of the possible variables.
Other bias arises when researchers select subjects that are more likely to generate the desired
results, a reversal of the normal processes governing science. Bias is the one factor that
makes qualitative research much more dependent upon experience and judgment
than quantitative research.

Biases that can occur in a research

1. Bias in data collection
Population consists of all individuals with a characteristic of interest. Since, studying a
population is quite often impossible due to the limited time and money; we usually study a
phenomenon of interest in a representative sample. By doing this, we hope that what we have
learned from a sample can be generalized to the entire population. To be able to do so, a sample
needs to be representative of the population. If this is not the case, conclusions will not be
generalizable, i.e. the study will not have the external validity.
So, sampling is a crucial step for every research. While collecting data for research, there are
numerous ways by which researchers can introduce bias in the study. If, for example, during
patient recruitment, some patients are less or more likely to enter the study than others, such
sample would not be representative of the population in which this research is done. In that case,
these subjects who are less likely to enter the study will be under-represented and those who are
more likely to enter the study will be over-represented relative to others in the general
population, to which conclusions of the study are to be applied to. This is what we call
a selection bias. To ensure that a sample is representative of a population, sampling should be
random, i.e. every subject needs to have equal probability to be included in the study. It should
be noted that sampling bias can also occur if sample is too small to represent the target
population.
For example, if the aim of the study is to assess the average HSCRP (high sensitive C-reactive
protein) concentration in healthy population in Croatia, the way to go would be to recruit healthy
individuals from a general population during their regular annual health checkup. On the other
hand, a biased study would be one which recruits only volunteer blood donors because healthy
blood donors are usually individuals who feel themselves healthy and who are not suffering from
any condition or illness which might cause changes in HSCRP concentration. By recruiting only
healthy blood donors we might conclude that HSCRP is much lower that it really is. This is a
kind of sampling bias, which we call a volunteer bias.
Another example for volunteer bias occurs by inviting colleagues from a laboratory or clinical
department to participate in the study on some new marker for anemia. It is very likely that such
study would preferentially include those participants who might suspect to be anemic and are
curious to learn it from this new test. This way, anemic individuals might be over-represented. A
research would then be biased and it would not allow generalization of conclusions to the rest of
the population.
Generally speaking, whenever cross-sectional or case control studies are done exclusively in
hospital settings, there is a good chance that such study will be biased. This is called admission
bias. Bias exists because the population studied does not reflect the general population.
Another example of sampling bias is the so called survivor bias which usually occurs in cross-
sectional studies. If a study is aimed to assess the association of altered KLK6 (human
Kallikrein-6) expression with a 10 year incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, subjects who died
before the study end point might be missed from the study.
Misclassification bias is a kind of sampling bias which occurs when a disease of interest is
poorly defined, when there is no gold standard for diagnosis of the disease or when a disease
might not be easy detectable. This way some subjects are falsely classified as cases or controls
whereas they should have been in another group. Let us say that a researcher wants to study the
accuracy of a new test for an early detection of the prostate cancer in asymptomatic men. Due to
absence of a reliable test for the early prostate cancer detection, there is a chance that some early
prostate cancer cases would go misclassified as disease-free causing the under- or over-
estimation of the accuracy of this new marker.
As a general rule, a research question needs to be considered with much attention and all efforts
should be made to ensure that a sample is as closely matched to the population, as possible.

2. Bias in data analysis

A researcher can introduce bias in data analysis by analyzing data in a way which gives
preference to the conclusions in favor of research hypothesis. There are various opportunities by
which bias can be introduced during data analysis, such as by fabricating, abusing or
manipulating the data. Some examples are:
 reporting non-existing data from experiments which were never done (data fabrication);
 eliminating data which do not support your hypothesis (outliers, or even whole
subgroups);
 using inappropriate statistical tests to test your data;
 performing multiple testing (“fishing for P”) by pair-wise comparisons (4), testing
multiple endpoints and performing secondary or subgroup analyses, which were not part
of the original plan in order “to find” statistically significant difference regardless to
hypothesis.
For example, if the study aim is to show that one biomarker is associated with another in a group
of patients, and this association does not prove significant in a total cohort, researchers may start
“torturing the data” by trying to divide their data into various subgroups until this association
becomes statistically significant. If this sub-classification of a study population was not part of
the original research hypothesis, such behavior is considered data manipulation and is neither
acceptable nor ethical. Such studies quite often provide meaningless conclusions such as:
 CRP was statistically significant in a subgroup of women under 37 years with cholesterol
concentration > 6.2 mmol/L;
 Lactate concentration was negatively associated with albumin concentration in a
subgroup of male patients with a body mass index in the lowest quartile and total
leukocyte count below 4.00 × 109/L.
Besides being biased, invalid and illogical, those conclusions are also useless, since they cannot
be generalized to the entire population.
There is a very often quoted saying (attributed to Ronald Coase, but unpublished to the best of
my knowledge), which says: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
This actually means that there is a good chance that statistical significance will be reached only
by increasing the number of hypotheses tested in the work. The question is then: is this
significant difference real or did it occur by pure chance?
Actually, it is well known that if 20 tests are performed on the same data set, at least one Type 1
error (α) is to be expected. Therefore, the number of hypotheses to be tested in a certain study
needs to determine in advance. If multiple hypotheses are tested, correction for multiple testing
should be applied or study should be declared as exploratory.

3. Bias in data interpretation

By interpreting the results, one needs to make sure that proper statistical tests were used, that
results were presented correctly and that data are interpreted only if there was a statistical
significance of the observed relationship (5). Otherwise, there may be some bias in a research.
However, wishful thinking is not rare in scientific research. Some researchers tend to believe so
much in their original hypotheses that they tend to neglect the original findings and interpret
them in favor of their beliefs. Examples are:
 discussing observed differences and associations even if they are not statistically
significant (the often used expression is “borderline significance”);
 discussing differences which are statistically significant but are not clinically meaningful;
 drawing conclusions about the causality, even if the study was not designed as an
experiment;
 drawing conclusions about the values outside the range of observed data (extrapolation);
 overgeneralization of the study conclusions to the entire general population, even if a
study was confined to the population subset;
 Type I (the expected effect is found significant, when actually there is none) and type II
(the expected effect is not found significant, when it is actually present) errors (6).
Even if this is done as an honest error or due to the negligence, it is still considered a serious
misconduct.

4. Publication bias
Unfortunately, scientific journals are much more likely to accept for publication a study which
reports some positive than a study with negative findings. Such behavior creates false impression
in the literature and may cause long-term consequences to the entire scientific community. Also,
if negative results would not have so many difficulties to get published, other scientists would
not unnecessarily waste their time and financial resources by re-running the same experiments.
Journal editors are the most responsible for this phenomenon. Ideally, a study should have equal
opportunity to be published regardless of the nature of its findings, if designed in a proper way,
with valid scientific assumptions, well conducted experiments and adequate data analysis,
presentation and conclusions. However, in reality, this is not the case. To enable publication of
studies reporting negative findings, several journals have already been launched, For example,
Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results, Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine, Journal
of Interesting Negative Results and some other. The aim of such journals is to counterbalance the
ever-increasing pressure in the scientific literature to publish only positive results.

Section V
Definition and types of Biases

Bias is defined as 'inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group'.

As i understand it we can say that biases are simply our preferences and choices. And if we look
at it in this way, aren't we all biased. We all have our own preferences i almost everything. Even
the person, who claims to be very objective, is in a way biased towards objectivity. So we can
say that we are most of the times directed by our biases. And our prejudices and biases hold
quite a strong position in our personality and our personality defines who we are.

We hear speeches and articles about how we should get rid of our biases. But are we really
making a good change or a bad one? If the driver loses control of the steering, do we remove
the steering itself or train the driver?

Types of biases

Anchoring

Anchoring is a psychological heuristic that describes the propensity to rely on the first piece of
information encountered when making decisions. According to this heuristic, individuals begin with an
implicitly suggested reference point (the "anchor") and make adjustments to it to reach their estimate.
For example, the initial price offered for a used car sets the standard for the rest of the negotiations, so
that prices lower than the initial price seem more reasonable even if they are still higher than what the
car is worth.

Apophenia

Apophenia, also known as patternicity or agenticity, is the human tendency to perceive meaningful
patterns within random data. Apophenia is well documented as a rationalization for gambling. Gamblers
may imagine that they see patterns in the numbers which appear in lotteries, card games, or roulette
wheels. One manifestation of this is known as the "gambler's fallacy".

Attribution

An attribution bias can occur when individuals assess or attempt to discover explanations behind their
own and others' behaviors. People make attributions about the causes of their own and others'
behaviors; but these attributions don't necessarily precisely reflect reality. Rather than operating as
objective perceivers, individuals are inclined to perceptual slips that prompt biased understandings of
their social world. When judging others we tend to assume their actions are the result of internal factors
such as personality, whereas we tend to assume our own actions arise because of the necessity of
external circumstances. There are a wide range of sorts of attribution biases, such as the ultimate
attribution error, fundamental attribution error, actor-observer bias, and self-serving bias.

Confirmation

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that
confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses while giving disproportionately less attention to information that
contradicts it. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search,
interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement
becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief
perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational
primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation
(when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations). Confirmation biases
contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of
contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational
contexts.

Halo effect

The halo effect and the horn effect are when an observer's overall impression of a person, organization,
brand, or product influences their feelings about specifics of that entity's character or properties.

The name halo effect is based on the concept of the saint's halo, and is a specific type of confirmation
bias, wherein positive sentiments in one area cause questionable or unknown characteristics to be seen
positively. If the observer likes one aspect of something, they will have a positive predisposition toward
everything about it. A person's appearance has been found to produce a halo effect.The halo effect is
also present in the field of brand marketing, affecting perception of companies and non-governmental
organizations
Self serving

Self-serving bias is the tendency for cognitive or perceptual processes to be distorted by the individual's
need to maintain and enhance self-esteem. It is the propensity to credit accomplishment to our own
capacities and endeavors, yet attribute failure to outside factors, to dismiss the legitimacy of negative
criticism, concentrate on positive qualities and accomplishments yet disregard flaws and failures. Studies
have demonstrated that this bias can affect behavior in the workplace, in interpersonal relationships,
playing sports, and in consumer decisions.

Section VI
C A N W E B E CO M P L E T E LY F R E E F RO M O U R B I AS E S ?

Bias is universally recognized problem which one should get rid of to be absolutely fair and objective in
life. But is it the only solution? And if it is, is it even possible? As a student of logic I can say that, yes
hypothetically speaking it could be possible to be absolutely free from bias that is completely objective.
However, the problem with being absolutely objective is that we need to weigh every situation, every
person, every dilemma we are in with its pros and cons. In the fast paced world that we live, is it really
possible to invest that much time, energy and efforts every time that we have to make a decision? This is
primarily why cognitive schemas exist. A schema describes a pattern of thought or behavior that
organizes categories of information and the relationships among them. It can also be described as a
mental structure of preconceived ideas, a framework representing some aspect of the world, or a
system of organizing and perceiving new information. Schemata influence attention and the
absorption of new knowledge: people are more likely to notice things that fit into their schema, while
re-interpreting contradictions to the schema as exceptions or distorting them to fit. Schemata have a
tendency to remain unchanged, even in the face of contradictory information. Schemata can help in
understanding the world and the rapidly changing environment. People can organize new
perceptions into schemata quickly as most situations do not require complex thought when using
schema, since automatic thought is all that is required

People use schemata to organize current knowledge and provide a framework for future
understanding. Examples of schemata include academic rubrics, social schemas, stereotypes, social
roles, scripts, worldviews, and archetypes. In Piaget's theory of development, children construct a
series of schemata, based on the interactions they experience, to help them understand the world.
For e.g.: you have a schema in your head about how to behave at a wedding that guides your behavior

While one may argue that those are nothing but biases, one cannot deny that without these cognitive
shortcuts it would be impossible to maneuver through the world.

By being biased towards objectivity, especially when dealing with human beings, one tends to look over
the fact that humans are complex being, the behavior of whom is affected by not only the situations
they are in, but also their past experiences , future expectations and present state of mind. Therefore
it's not possible to study to human beings absolutely objectively with the same framework. Thus,
ironically, if one really wants to be objective in the study of humans, one need to give up their obsession
with generalizability and control, and subjectively study every participant

I agree that we are made up of our biases and Nobody's taking that away from you but the thing is that
in certain situations you are supposed to be bias less so that's why I feel like the entire reason why we
study bias is because so that we know that they exist and so that we can think ahead of them in
situations where we need to think objectively.

Section VII
CO N C LU S I O N

In this society, in this era of objectivity bias is considered a vice. One of the foulest even. And it’s
agreeable that some situations like research, judgments etc. we must be bias less or completely
objective.

However every coin has two sides and it is our duty as logic students to investigate both of them. And
this assignment tries to point out we cannot be completely objective. Like some situations demand
objectivity some also demand being bias like some very basic daily chores such as choice of clothes or
food or transport etc. we cannot afford to waste our time on being objective in such situations.

Other advantages of bias are:

(1) Speeding of scrutiny and improving of target detection in changing or uncertain situations;

(2) Aiding of a rapid choice of practical short-term rather than optimal longer term plans;

(3) Allowing appraisal of a workable world by creating fairly stable categories;

(4) Motivating of exploration and completion of problem-solving which might otherwise be abandoned too
early.

Everyone has their own biases. Everyone have their own way of dealing with them. According to me
rather than teaching people to be completely objective in all situations, the more important and may be
more effective way of making people fair in research and in general is by training them in recognizing and
controlling their biases and recognizing the situations that need them to be objective.
Section VIII
REFERENCES

1. The misuse of statistics: concepts, tools, and a research agenda. Account Res. 2002;9:65–
74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989620212968.

2. Types of studies, power of study and choice of test. Acta Med Croatica. 2006;60(Suppl 1):47–

3. Ten categories of statistical errors: a guide for research in endocrinology and metabolism. Am
J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2004;286:495–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00484.2003.

4. . Basic&Clinical biostatistics. New York – Toronto: Lange Medical Books/McGraw-Hill;

2004. Reading the medical literature.

5. Practical recommendations for statistical analysis and data presentation in Biochemia Medica
journal. Biochem Med. 2012;22:15–23.

6. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

7. journals.sagepub.com

8. link.springer.com

9. thevisualcommunicationguy.com

10. writing.colostate.edu

11. www.yourarticlelibrary.com

12. research-methodology.net

13. explorable.com