Ummm...What's a "Bias?"

[Cruentus]

Oh...and do you know what I like to do for fun in arguements...

I like to use words like "fact" and "Truth" and "true," just because I know how badly it pisses the other side off.

:rofl:

Ehhh...I kill myself!

Geoffrey Fieger

 

[Cruentus]

Peace, y'all, and HWARANG!!

Choong Moo!

ADMIRAL Yi Sun-Shin

 

[michaeledward]

My dad used to say that there were three sides to every story...My side, your side and the truth. No two people are going to view any particular situation in the same light. Even someone who believes that they are giving the "honest truth" are giving that truth based on their own past experiences, their own belief system and preconcieved notions.

So, is there no such thing as 'objective'? I believe there is. However, in certain arena's objectivity is more difficult to come by.

For instance:
H20 - at sea level - become a solid - ice - at 0 degrees Centigrade (32 degrees farenheit). There is no way that my opinion can alter that piece of information. You can test it. And when it works, you can test it again. Every time you test this proposition, the results are going to be the same.

There is also, 'Subjective' information. Information that can not be tested, or if it is tested it can not consistantly produce the same results. Our best knowledge, experience and reasoning can predict a reasonably accurate result, but not a specific result. For instance; On July 1st, I expect the tempurature in Nashua, NH to be between 80 and 83 degrees farenheit at 1:00 PM. With enough attempts, I can probably show this is likely to happen.

Then there is 'Opinion'. Where we impose our personal thoughts into a set of data. Where, for instance, I believe the United States is more than the sum of its individuals. We are a great nation because of the community we have built; caring for each other, allowing all members of the community to have the same opportunities and being responsible to each other.

The problem is, when we start confusing these types of information. If I present my opinion as subjective information, then I am introducing a 'Bias'.

If I am not mistake, it is the Philosophers in our society that best attempt to place our world in an Objective view point. To think about what the world would be like if we were not perceiving it.

As example (From the Non-Fiction Book I am reading); Bush will not allow Federal Funding for research and development of new stem cell lines because the creation of the stem cells destroys an embryo, which he states is precious and deserves our protection. The author asks, if these embryos are "precious and deserving of our protection, why is the government not working on legislation to prevent couples from destroying the remaining fertilized embryos after a successful IVF procedure? It was a very powerful arguement in objective thinking.

Subjectively ... Mike

 

[Cryozombie]

I'd agree with Mike on that...

Also, IMO, I would use the term "Biased" to describe someone who ignores/changes facts and or Evidence, to make his point...

For a Fictonal Example, Lets say President "Goober" vetos a gun controll bill, stating it violates constitutional rights. But President "Goober" also approves a lot of anti-crime legislation.

Then Filmmaker "Mike Miller" comes along and makes a movie about President "Goober" supporting crime because he vetoed that Gun Controll bill, and he protrays "Goober" as a crime loving, gang helping, guntoting anti-american leader, by showing things out of context and ignoring all of his anti-crime legislation...

THAT is Bias, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Cruentus]

I'd agree with Mike on that...

Also, IMO, I would use the term "Biased" to describe someone who ignores/changes facts and or Evidence, to make his point...

For a Fictonal Example, Lets say President "Goober" vetos a gun controll bill, stating it violates constitutional rights. But President "Goober" also approves a lot of anti-crime legislation.

Then Filmmaker "Mike Miller" comes along and makes a movie about President "Goober" supporting crime because he vetoed that Gun Controll bill, and he protrays "Goober" as a crime loving, gang helping, guntoting anti-american leader, by showing things out of context and ignoring all of his anti-crime legislation...

THAT is Bias, as far as I am concerned.

Very clever....

Mike Hannity

 

[shesulsa]

Techno -

Well, crap, then we have to discuss hypocracy. Bias towards guns, but biased against crime...gee, that sounds like a lot of martial artists I know (he he) and using that kind of example to make his point is misguided and keeps Moore from demonstrating some excellent points he has when you read other interviews, and lends bias to the movie.

However, artistic license is all about bias, isn't it? And when we try to lend more credibility toward a piece of art (heh - such as it is, heh) that it is due, then slam it because it's not factual or fair according to us, then we're biased, right?

What were we talking about again?

Hugs, Techno!!

 

[Cryozombie]

Techno -

Well, crap, then we have to discuss hipocracy. I think your example of President Goober(face) demonstrates hipocracy on his part based on personal and political bias.

But I think you're correct on the Michael Moore thing. I have only seen one Moore film - Bowling for Columbine - and I plan to see more.

Hugs, Techno!!

Hey... I wasn't saying anything about Moore... I know he is a hotspot of debate, so I MIGHT have used the example of a filmmaker because people recognize that... but It was a purely fictional example.

 

[shesulsa]

He he he - you read and replied to my first point while I was trying to edit it...I thought it might be biased.

HE HE HE HE HE

 

[Cruentus]

Hey... I wasn't saying anything about Moore... I know he is a hotspot of debate, so I MIGHT have used the example of a filmmaker because people recognize that... but It was a purely fictional example.

I was remote viewing your unconscience...

%think%

:rofl:

Yours,

Johnie Edwards

 

[Tgace]

I agree. However, when you are able to think critically, sometimes you do "flip sides."

I went from being for national registries and some level of gun control to being very much against national registries and gun control when I got more information about the subject.

I guess, I am not afraid to admit it when I am wrong, as much as I hate to sometimes. Most people are very afraid to ever admit to being wrong, even when they clearly are. I see many other people as being big wossy babies who hold on to their little opinions like a security blanket.

That's just my take, anyhow.

Agreed, but that depends on if the other person truely believes hes "wrong" or "lost". Sometimes people assume they have "won" and the other person should just lie down. I have seen very few to nobody admit "loosing" in an arguement on either the internet or in person. Most people show up a few weeks or months later with a different opinion.

 

[loki09789]

If the point is that critical thinking skill is the

"process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion"

to combat bias which is "preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment"

then it isn't the proper tool to consider. Critical thinking is all about forming conclusions and opinions/answers for yourself. The desire to try and form an 'unbiased' opinion is an ethical choice.

I think the tool to avoid allowing 'bias' is attitude, bearing and control (ABC's),

Attitude: Go into topic/discussion with the mentallity of first understanding and then consideration and finally respect so that you avoid judging the statement as you read it. Ever notice how many people during a conversation (including me and anyone else here) doesn't really listen all the time, but spends their 'listening turn' to plan out your next response?

Bearing: "Don't kill the messenger" by blasting the sender of the message no matter how much you disagree. Make sure your replies/contributions are for the intent of discussion and not attacking/belittling the other person's character.

Control: Don't respond or act based on vindictiveness, intimidation, fear or any other emotional motivation as the prime mover. Respond on topic, about the topic and 'to the topic'.

Regardless of your opinion on R. Reagan, even his 'enemies' admitted that he knew how to keep an adversary from feeling like an enemy. I think it is a good lesson to pick up.

 

[Cruentus]

Agreed, but that depends on if the other person truely believes hes "wrong" or "lost". Sometimes people assume they have "won" and the other person should just lie down. I have seen very few to nobody admit "loosing" in an arguement on either the internet or in person. Most people show up a few weeks or months later with a different opinion.

Holy crud....that is hilarious Tgace...because it's SOOO true! :rofl:

 

[Tgace]

Holy crud....that is hilarious Tgace...because it's SOOO true! :rofl:

Which is the only benefit to debating like we do here. We do have an influence on each other even if its only to force us to put our opinions down in type so we can better understand what it is we really believe.

 

[loki09789]

Which is the only benefit to debating like we do here. We do have an influence on each other even if its only to force us to put our opinions down in type so we can better understand what it is we really believe.

I tell my students all the time that writing is thinking in front of your eyes.

Even the most adversarial debates here have been more effective in helping me clarify and articulate for myself what it really is that I value. Thus applying my critical thinking process to create my 'answers/conclusions.' The same process is appied to evaluating the validity and worth of the other opinions as they are presented - regardless of whether they are in agreement/disagreement with my opinion.

Thanks for the plug for education/literacy Tom. But watch it, education is the cure to crime...you might put yourself out of work.

 

[Flatlander]

Really, when you think about it, your opinion or position on most topics is forever evolving. As we get older, and learn, and experience, we develop more context and move into different reference frames from which to formulate our opinions. There is no "truth" or "now" that is absolute. Just the path we walk through the great cosmic dance.

 

[heretic888]

There is no "truth" or "now" that is absolute. Just the path we walk through the great cosmic dance.

Oh, I'd say there most definately is.

Problem is, of course, that It can't really be expressed in words without creating paradox and contradiction. Guess that leaves most of us stuck with relative truth --- then again, not all relative "truths" are equally valid or substantial.

Laterz.

 

[Flatlander]

Oh, I'd say there most definately is.

Problem is, of course, that It can't really be expressed in words without creating paradox and contradiction. Guess that leaves most of us stuck with relative truth --- then again, not all relative "truths" are equally valid or substantial.

Laterz.

But those truths are very subjective, thus negating their absolutiveness (yes, I made that word up, but it works.) What I mean is that they are not "transferrable" to my consciousness without being inherently changed.

I realize that that I should exclude mathematical truths from this discussion. I can't question their validity.

 

[heretic888]

But those truths are very subjective, thus negating their absolutiveness (yes, I made that word up, but it works.) What I mean is that they are not "transferrable" to my consciousness without being inherently changed.

This might be a shock for a lot of the "objectivists" out there, but pretty much ALL "truths" are subjective to one degree or another --- or else we wouldn't be aware of them.

In any event, the "Absolute Truth" in the "Now" that I am referring to transcends the subject/object duality, anyway...

I realize that that I should exclude mathematical truths from this discussion. I can't question their validity.

This might be another shock, but "subjective" and "invalid" are not synonyms. Nor are "objective" and "valid".

Laterz.

 

[Tgace]

How "Zen" of you.

 

[loki09789]

This might be another shock, but "subjective" and "invalid" are not synonyms. Nor are "objective" and "valid".

Laterz.

That's the point, subjectivity is what an opinion is because of all the influences on a person (emotion, maturity, intellect, experience, environment...). This does not invalidate an opinion in and of itself. My mother is as homespun a little Okinawan woman as you can find, but I value her subjectivity on the world and life in so many ways. And there are tons of 'experts' out there with clinical data that I could care less about.

Sometimes, to me at least, objectivity is a lack of opinion or stance. That is why I say that it isn't so much that we need to more versed in critical thinking to reduce 'bias' but good listeners/communicators/people...