05-13-2017, 01:13 PM
(05-13-2017, 12:14 PM)Dill Wrote: I didn't really want to intervene in the bias discussion, but I cannot repress the urge to make three points here.
1. Telling someone to "avoid biased arguments" begs the question of what "bias" is and how it is pointed out or avoided. A good English teacher would not simply point to a student paper and say "that's biased." Bias is revealed in elements of writing like choice of diction and unfamiliarity with and exclusion of alternative explanations. Choice of diction includes things like name calling and prejudicial language ("When that stupid Reagan sent our troops to Lebanon") Standards for determining bias have to be independent of any specific religious or political viewpoint. E.g., you can't just say "That's biased cuz it's Mormon!"
2. I have heard some good debates between creationists and atheists. And I must say that it is very difficult to defend the Creationist position without bias, since it tends to rely on faith. That in itself is a kind of bias. One could say the atheists are "biased" in favor of scientific method and empirical evidence, but that might be a misuse of the term bias, since those are things characteristically used to exclude bias. I have often heard Creationists use this tack, claiming science is really just another form of faith.
(Generally, I have noticed that, in the Anglo world, people with the weaker position in a debate eventually frame everything as finally "opinion," and everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's, right? What makes you think you are better than everyone else? For balance, I add that I have often found the new atheists unlearned and arrogant, and certainly subject to charges of bias and bad argument.)
3. Finally, an argument could be "biased" and still be good, logical, sensible, informative. Worth reading. Myself, I am not particularly interested in whether an argument is biased. I am interested in whether it is logically consistent and the evidence is properly established.
Not trying to hijack the thread but, ^ interesting...
1. Diction also gives writing and speech color, in addition to showing bias. This is why reading someone like Maureen Dowd or Paul Krugman is not only informative but also entertaining. It is why I enjoy listening to Senator Al Franken's questioning during Senate hearings. Again, informative and entertaining. And, it is why I also enjoy listening to George Will. I tend to agree with Dowd, Krugman, and Franken, but they all build strong arguments and use colorful and bias revealing language. I tend to disagree with Will, but again, he builds strong arguments and uses colorful language which also indicates his bias. Here's the thing. All of those people will agree with the FACT of paper burning at a given temperature. Now, they may disagree about whether Ray Bradbury was a good writer, whether Fahrenheit 451 was a relevant book, and why with regard to both of those questions. But none of them - in spite of their biases - would deny the reality of paper burning or dismiss it as opinion. They all deal in facts! And as a matter of fact all would probably agree at least that the idea of burning books is dangerous and to see just how dangerous one need to look no further than our current political landscape. So, intelligent people can be biased, informed, and have differing opinions and also agree on not only facts but also the landscape of the world around them and certain solutions (Will has called for "quarentining" Trump and I imagine Dowd, Krugman, and Franken would likely agree with his assessment.)
2. Yeah, nothing is more tragic than the Theist who dismisses the Atheist who, "just doesn't know God," unless it is the Atheist who dismisses the Believer who believes things that on their face are, "stupid." At one time the earth orbiting the sun, a virus, bacteria, gravity, human flight, and space exploration were all on their face "stupid" things that some men and women believed in.
3. Yes, see #1. All the persons cited there have made countless biased, good, logical, sensible, informative arguments.
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
