I agree but that's a pretty thorough meta analysis it's been awhile since I read the article but as I recall the primary issue is confirmation bias not in assumptions but reflected in the data. They don't have sufficient variability over a large sample size. The logical conclusion being the data is being reported in a biased manner which supports the presumed hypothesis. There is a very important distinction between producing data and choosing post hoc a theory which is familiar to you and, as the author suggests due to a lack of experimental control allowing bias, most likely without intent, to influence the data reported. Simple experimental controls where the scientists are blind to the data they are analyzing and what it represents protects the integrity and validity of research. Humans as you eloquently stated are biased by nature which is why experiments should always be designed to control for it.Chronos said:The article evokes a sense of pareidolia, regarding big data. Intelligent life forms are predisposed to make associations between the unknown and familiar. It serves a vital survival role to anticipate danger by drawing parallels between new, unfamiliar data and data from past experience. Unanticipated and/or intense sensory inputs [e.g., loud noises] are autonomically processed as potential threats. Inputs reminiscent of pleasant experiences [e.g., music] are similarly processed. You cannot divorce the observer from this kind of bias because it is a hardwired response. I prefer to think the data can speak for itself. Correlations only suggest the possibility a data set varies due to something other than random noise. It could be a known factor, an unknown factor, or merely systematic error. That is what I expect big data analysis should be capable of discerning.