Science Biases

Systematic distortions that arise from the way science is practiced, institutionalized, and understood. Science Biases include: publication bias (positive results get published, negative results don't); funding bias (research gets funded when it serves interests); confirmation bias in study design; bias toward what's measurable over what's meaningful; bias toward Western, educated, industrial, rich, democratic (WEIRD) populations; bias against null results, replication studies, or challenging paradigms. Science Biases don't mean science is wrong—they mean science is human, and humans have biases that shape what gets studied and what gets found.

Science Biases "Why do we know so much about drug effects and so little about nutrition? That's Science Bias—funding goes where profit is. Why do psychology studies use undergrads? That's Science Bias—convenience shapes knowledge. Science biases aren't conspiracies; they're structural. Recognizing them doesn't invalidate science—it makes science better."

by Dumu The Void March 1, 2026

Science Metabiases

Second-order biases about science—systematic distortions in how we understand, value, and critique scientific practice. Science Metabiases include: treating science as monolithic rather than diverse; assuming scientific consensus is always right; using "science says" as an argument-ender; believing that science is self-correcting in ways that eliminate bias; ignoring the social, historical, and institutional dimensions of science; treating critiques of science as anti-science. Science Metabiases shape public understanding of science and scientists' understanding of themselves.

Science Metabiases "He says 'science proves it' as if science were a unified oracle. That's Science Metabias—treating science as a monolith, not a messy human activity. Science is diverse, contested, evolving. The metabias is thinking 'science' settles arguments when it actually opens inquiries. Science isn't a conclusion; it's a process—and metabias makes us forget that."

by Dumu The Void March 1, 2026

Science Communication Bias

A bias where individuals, including professional science communicators, present and interpret science through the lens of their own views, paradigms, values, and assumptions. Science Communication Bias recognizes that there is no neutral, objective way to communicate science—every choice about what to emphasize, what to omit, how to frame, and what language to use reflects the communicator's perspective. A science communicator who believes in technological solutions will emphasize different findings than one who emphasizes systemic change; one who trusts industry will frame risk differently than one who is skeptical. Science Communication Bias doesn't mean science communication is worthless; it means we must be aware that it's always coming from somewhere, always shaped by someone's perspective. The bias is especially problematic when communicators present themselves as neutral conduits of "the science" while actually selecting, framing, and interpreting through their own paradigms.

Example: "The YouTube science channel presented itself as just reporting the facts. But Science Communication Bias was at work: they emphasized studies that fit their worldview, downplayed those that didn't, framed uncertainty as certainty when it served their narrative. They weren't lying; they were just communicating from a perspective—and pretending they weren't."

by Abzugal March 9, 2026

Science Power

The recognition that science is not a pure, neutral pursuit of truth, but a form of power in its own right, operating as a distinct sphere of influence alongside politics, economics, and military force. Science power includes the authority to define reality, the control of expertise as a resource, the ability to grant or deny funding, and the gatekeeping of what counts as "knowledge." It's the understanding that who controls the labs, journals, and peer review processes wields as much influence as who controls the army or the treasury.

Example: "They didn't need to censor the research; they just used their science power to deny funding and ensure it never got published in the first place."

by Dumu The Void March 11, 2026

Science of Scientific Orthodoxy

The empirical study of scientific orthodoxy using the methods and tools of science itself—treating orthodoxy as a natural phenomenon to be investigated through observation, measurement, and analysis. The science of scientific orthodoxy applies quantitative and qualitative methods to understand how consensus forms, how it changes, and how it functions: bibliometric analysis of citation patterns, network analysis of scientific communities, historical analysis of paradigm shifts, psychological studies of consensus formation, and sociological surveys of scientific beliefs. It treats orthodoxy not as something to be simply accepted or rejected, but as something to be understood—a phenomenon with regularities, causes, and effects that can be studied scientifically. The science of scientific orthodoxy is science studying itself, using its own tools to understand one of its most fundamental social dynamics.

Example: "Her science of scientific orthodoxy research used citation analysis to track how a new theory became dominant—showing that the shift wasn't driven by a single killer experiment but by a gradual accumulation of social and intellectual factors. Science studying science reveals how science really works."

by Abzugal March 16, 2026

Science of Orthodoxy

The empirical study of orthodoxies themselves using scientific methods—treating orthodoxy as a natural phenomenon to be investigated through observation, measurement, and analysis. The science of orthodoxy applies quantitative and qualitative methods across multiple domains to understand how orthodoxies form, how they persist, how they change, and how they function in different contexts. It draws on history (tracking the rise and fall of orthodox views), sociology (studying the social structures that maintain orthodoxy), psychology (examining the cognitive biases that make orthodoxy attractive), network analysis (mapping how orthodox views spread through communities), and institutional analysis (understanding how organizations enforce orthodoxy). The science of orthodoxy seeks not just to describe orthodoxies but to explain them—to understand the regularities, causes, and effects of this fundamental human phenomenon across religious, scientific, political, and cultural domains.

Example: "Her science of orthodoxy research used network analysis to show how certain beliefs become dominant in online communities—not because they're true, but because they spread through influential nodes and get reinforced by group dynamics. The same patterns appear whether the content is political, religious, or scientific."

by Dumu The Void March 17, 2026

Science Based Lifting

Science-based lifting refers to a training approach that emphasizes using scientific principles and research findings to optimize workout routines, nutrition, and recovery.

Gymbro 1 - "Yo bro, you tryna do some keenan flaps?"
Gymbro 2 - " Get this science based lifting snot out of my face"

by sciencebasedlifter June 3, 2025