What if scientists really were dispassionate observers, communicating ideas without irrational commitment? Look here, says AI.

This is Jessica. We often idealize science as proceeding primarily by the scientific method, where scientists approach the objects of their investigation with a healthy dose of detachment and neutrality, and become convinced only when the evidence is there. But in reality we see examples of authors becoming personally attached to their ideas despite the data, slipping into advocacy and becoming defensive or going into denial mode when presented with clear evidence they were wrong. The seemingly irrational attachment to the ideas or findings can seem easy to dismiss as a bad thing. Yet there are also times when having some level of personal commitment makes one more effective at certain roles that scientists must play. For example, being too transparent about our own uncertainty is not effective when presenting research to others, because the audience can become distracted and stop listening entirely, even if you have some useful insight to convey. My question is, What does our ability…