[woooooo]

Explicitly enforcing biases towards a particular ideological project is not "unbiasing", though, it's more bias.

Maybe I'm engaging in FUD and these people will be content with some minor efforts towards restraining bias, but in my experience it's never enough.

[p0pcult]

Maybe I am missing the part where is says there is a particular ideological project beyond better science?

You act like bias isn't actually a problem in science, but when I think back to the number of studies recruiting on campus at my Highly Selective Undergrad Institution (TM), and cross reference that with the student population, it's really easy to understand the claims that science is WEIRD[1].

[1] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/weird

[woooooo]

You're describing a very legitimate sampling error problem. I'm describing forced ideological conformity. Both exist in academia today.

If, in the spirit of the proposed "bias declaiming section", a social scientist made a point of saying that they're systematically biased against conservative and white/rural viewpoints, how do you think that would go over? Pat on the back for introspection?

[arrrg]

I think so, yeah, sure.

Why don’t you think so? "Our own academic perspective limits us e.g. in our survey design and language, making it harder for us to connect with our respondents" is something I heard and learned over and over and over again.

[woooooo]

That's different. Your phrasing is politically neutral and could even be interpreted as centering blue-favored groups.

My contention is that any "unbiasing" which said "we are going to lean conservative to counter our innate liberal bias" would not be welcomed.

(I'm a liberal, btw, I just believe in calling a spade a spade. Don't call one-sided activism "unbiasing".)

[the_third_wave]

Please don't add disclaimers like "I'm a liberal", it should not matter what your political opinions are. Shoot the message, not the messenger after all?