ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th December 2017, 07:14 PM   #41
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,503
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I would like to point out that whenever anyone points out a consequence of my political policies, I absolutely agree with them. Facts do change my mind.
Bob, I figured this was you:
Quote:
Only one participant believed that he or she was more biased than the average American.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2017, 07:32 PM   #42
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,593
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Ah. This is good. We will all acknowledge both sides have biases. That will surely take the sting out when the NRA organizes the American KL and "accused liberals" are being put into the camps.
Had I not read some of your more, er, interesting posts in recent months, I'd have assumed this was some sort of joke. These ideas are so divorced from reality as to be surreal.

That said, what is KL?
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2017, 11:08 PM   #43
Wayward son
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
That said, what is KL?
Generally, in this context KL (or sometimes KZ) is for Konzentrationslager.

Last edited by Wayward son; 8th December 2017 at 11:10 PM.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 06:58 AM   #44
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,577
Originally Posted by BNRT View Post
While I have no doubt that this is true, my guess would be that before looking at the evidence, you start out with some assumptions (or biases). These asumptions might seem or be true or self-evident, but they might not be necessarily so (although I am far from the judge of that). Assumptions about the responsibilities of governments; principles of equality; social, cultural or religious freedoms and so forth. People with different assumptions might look at the same evidence in a very different way.
Fair enough. I tend to value equality, fairness, and human decency.

Sent from my Moto X Play using Tapatalk
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 04:07 PM   #45
Whatfor
Scholar
 
Whatfor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
Exactly. I'm liberal because of evidence. I look at places in the world that appeal to me, both in terms of quality of life and economic properity, and the policies in these places. For some reason, everywhere I'd consider worth living has liberal policies, including labour rights, environmental protections, higher taxes, a lack of religion influencing government, reproductive rights, etc.

Places which follow conservative policies, with low to no taxes, no minimum wage, freedom to openly discriminate, and no environmental protections tend to be unpleasant to live in, unless you are wealthy.

In the US, for example, compare California and New York to Kansas and Oklahoma. I think this holds true on a global scale.

There might be exceptions, but I'm hard pressed to think of them.
But "liberal" and "conservative" are philosophies, doctrines, moral stances. They are not the same as facts and cannot be "based on evidence." The facts, the evidence, can only support your opinion as to which is morally better.

Unfortunately, I can't agree that conservative states "tend to be unpleasant to live in unless you are wealthy." The things you list that you are looking for are all political. But personally, I judge a pleasant life by whether I can afford to live comfortably, whether there is easy access to wilderness, whether the people are reasonably friendly (I'm not in favor of chatting that holds up traffic), whether the population density is fairly low, and whether the internet is available everywhere. By these standards my current state, Utah, scores high, although it hits pretty much every item on your "unpleasant" list.

Just to be clear, I'm a pretty extreme liberal and am in favor of all the same policies you are. But the reason why I have that philosophy really has nothing to do with evidence. I remember even as a small child feeling strongly about fairness and not telling other people what they should do. Surely you're aware of the studies over the last few years showing that conservative and liberal politics are associated with different sets of moral beliefs? Beliefs aren't formed from evidence, but from feelings.

Political principles are beliefs. I think you are interpreting evidence to support your beliefs, not to create them.
Whatfor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2017, 09:58 AM   #46
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,087
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Nice list, but you forget Exceptionalism: Republicans way more often than Democrats refuse to seek solutions to US problems by studying how other countries have dealt with similar issues.
There are very few things that are unique about today's America, and it is clear what the result of certain politics will be by observing how they played out in other times and places.


Exceptionalism: Democrats way more often than Republicans refuse to seek solutions to US problems by studying how various states independently try solutions to similar issues, preferring a solution imposed by the federal government.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2017, 11:15 AM   #47
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,577
Originally Posted by Whatfor View Post
But "liberal" and "conservative" are philosophies, doctrines, moral stances. They are not the same as facts and cannot be "based on evidence." The facts, the evidence, can only support your opinion as to which is morally better.

Unfortunately, I can't agree that conservative states "tend to be unpleasant to live in unless you are wealthy." The things you list that you are looking for are all political. But personally, I judge a pleasant life by whether I can afford to live comfortably, whether there is easy access to wilderness, whether the people are reasonably friendly (I'm not in favor of chatting that holds up traffic), whether the population density is fairly low, and whether the internet is available everywhere. By these standards my current state, Utah, scores high, although it hits pretty much every item on your "unpleasant" list.

Just to be clear, I'm a pretty extreme liberal and am in favor of all the same policies you are. But the reason why I have that philosophy really has nothing to do with evidence. I remember even as a small child feeling strongly about fairness and not telling other people what they should do. Surely you're aware of the studies over the last few years showing that conservative and liberal politics are associated with different sets of moral beliefs? Beliefs aren't formed from evidence, but from feelings.

Political principles are beliefs. I think you are interpreting evidence to support your beliefs, not to create them.
Perhaps I poorly expressed myself. Looking worldwide, most of the places with policies Republicans say they want aren't places I want to live.

Places where religion is endorsed by governer, with low taxes and regulations (environmental, labour, etc.) without minimum wage, a social safety net, UHC, or anti-discrimination laws. I can't think of anywhere like that where I'd want to do more than visit.

Sent from my Moto X Play using Tapatalk
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2017, 01:34 PM   #48
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,964
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
critical thinking

Skepticism is doubting something. Critical thinking is understanding the process of how we know something and separating facts from opinions and assumptions (or biases, if you prefer).
At some point this is just kinda semantics. In practice, I consider "my skepticism" (as a self-identifying skeptic) and "my goal of thinking critically" the same thing.
Sure, skepticism is the doubt part, and the critical thinking is the "how to doubt the right way" part, but it's all one intertwined process.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2017, 02:48 PM   #49
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,042
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
At some point this is just kinda semantics. In practice, I consider "my skepticism" (as a self-identifying skeptic) and "my goal of thinking critically" the same thing.
Sure, skepticism is the doubt part, and the critical thinking is the "how to doubt the right way" part, but it's all one intertwined process.
Tell that to climate change skeptics.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2017, 05:18 PM   #50
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,964
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Tell that to climate change skeptics.
I was actually thinking of flat earthers when I made my post, but I'm just talking about how skepticism and critical thinking are intertwined for me.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2017, 06:25 PM   #51
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,042
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I was actually thinking of flat earthers when I made my post, but I'm just talking about how skepticism and critical thinking are intertwined for me.
Fair enough. It's just not universal enough to be synonymous.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2017, 06:39 PM   #52
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,286
It is much easier to maintain objectivity if you limit how many subjects you form an opinion on veracity. "I don't know or have an opinion if true of not" and "I don't care" should probably be used more often.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 01:17 AM   #53
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,964
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Fair enough. It's just not universal enough to be synonymous.

Totally. It's very personal to me because I write in "skepticism" on the "what's your religion" portion of all paperwork I have to fill out which leaves a write-in option. (I'm a bit of a Descartes fan, with the whole "I think, therefore I am" thing.)

I also admit to sort of giggling at the notion that people who have been members of "the skeptic community" for 10 or 20 or whatever years need basic education about fighting our own cognitive biases. Like we've never been down this road before. Like, if we were just a tad more introspective, we'd be voting for conservatives.
If you don't find that funny, you have no sense of humor. LOL
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

Last edited by kellyb; 11th December 2017 at 01:19 AM.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 04:59 AM   #54
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,042
I’ve long been taught on this board that critical thinking is the methodology while skepticism is the guiding principle. Moreover, skepticism is largely meaningless if it doesn’t start with self-skepticism.

When confronted with something counter to what you think is true, the first step shouldn’t be to doubt the new idea, but to first identify and be skeptical of your own assumptions around the idea you currently possess. Why do you think that? Because you know or because you have made an assumption, that may or may not be true? Check your own sources, get your own house in order, then check whether the new idea is or could be true.

This board taught me that the hard way.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 01:54 PM   #55
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,137
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Had I not read some of your more, er, interesting posts in recent months, I'd have assumed this was some sort of joke. These ideas are so divorced from reality as to be surreal.

That said, what is KL?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps

I'm reading a book on their history. Before they were hugely organized death camps they were ad hoc places pro Hitler goons just setup on the fly to detain anyone that they disliked for political reasons. Often just people they knew that said mean things about the Nazis when they weren't in power yet.

Reading through it and I realized that we have all the mirrors in place. The NRA is setup as the perfect American version of the SA (who chiefly were responsible for the spontaneous abduction and punishment) and we've seen that conservatives seem more concerned with "punishing" liberals than with any cohesive policy in the same way the KL was chiefly about retribution at first.

Put it all together and we have a recipe to repeat the entire damned thing.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 04:01 PM   #56
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
But is that the point of this thread?
Yes, that's the point of this thread. Also, a reasoned and intelligent discussion of how much bias is present in our current political environment. I'm an optimist, apparently

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Could be I'm just biased, but whenever I've seen this issue raised in a political setting it's invariably boiled down to a tu quoque. "Everyone's biased anyway so I should be free to wallow in my own without criticism" is the unstated but ever-present implication.
Gee, thanks for that not-at-all condescending and dismissive interpretation of a thread.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 04:05 PM   #57
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by BNRT View Post
While I have no doubt that this is true, my guess would be that before looking at the evidence, you start out with some assumptions (or biases). These asumptions might seem or be true or self-evident, but they might not be necessarily so (although I am far from the judge of that). Assumptions about the responsibilities of governments; principles of equality; social, cultural or religious freedoms and so forth. People with different assumptions might look at the same evidence in a very different way.
Very true. It's always going to be filtered through our earliest childhood teachings and our formative experiences.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 04:05 PM   #58
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,782
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps

I'm reading a book on their history. Before they were hugely organized death camps they were ad hoc places pro Hitler goons just setup on the fly to detain anyone that they disliked for political reasons. Often just people they knew that said mean things about the Nazis when they weren't in power yet.

Reading through it and I realized that we have all the mirrors in place. The NRA is setup as the perfect American version of the SA (who chiefly were responsible for the spontaneous abduction and punishment) and we've seen that conservatives seem more concerned with "punishing" liberals than with any cohesive policy in the same way the KL was chiefly about retribution at first.

Put it all together and we have a recipe to repeat the entire damned thing.
Now this is how you do Politics and Bias!
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 04:52 PM   #59
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,042
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Yes, that's the point of this thread. Also, a reasoned and intelligent discussion of how much bias is present in our current political environment.
It's not so much bias as an ideological rejection of objective reality. What Trump does goes beyond mere spin.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 05:06 PM   #60
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
It's not so much bias as an ideological rejection of objective reality. What Trump does goes beyond mere spin.
Okay... but do you realize that you're doing exactly what the articles in the OP call out? You're assigning all of the flaws, all of the bias, all of the poor logic to "the other side" and pretty much assuming that your side doesn't engage in the same behavior. The topics are different, and in many cases the magnitude is different...

But it also has a lot less to do with the topic at hand than the way in which it is addressed. The "other side" is dumb, they're illogical, they're rejecting reality, they're evil, they're bad, they're immoral.

It all boils down to the same story: they're bad and we're good.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 05:20 PM   #61
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,042
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Okay... but do you realize that you're doing exactly what the articles in the OP call out? You're assigning all of the flaws, all of the bias, all of the poor logic to "the other side" and pretty much assuming that your side doesn't engage in the same behavior.
I think you've missed both the point of both the first article and the responses of many of the posters in this thread in relation to bias.

For example, how do you know what I'm thinking? What thought processes did I go through to reach the positions I have stated in this thread?

Does objective reality have a role to play in determining what is bias and what is not, or is any position biased regardless of objective supporting evidence?


Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
But it also has a lot less to do with the topic at hand than the way in which it is addressed. The "other side" is dumb, they're illogical, they're rejecting reality, they're evil, they're bad, they're immoral.
Except for this, I did not use any of those terms. Again, do you believe there an objective reality? If so, do you believe it has any role to play in a discussion of bias? What does a lack of bias mean, in your opinion?

ETA Side note: I note that this is the first time you've included "rejecting reality" as an example of saying "The other side is dumb". In fact, a focus on objective reality is at the very center of critical thinking. It is curious that you added them to your list when it does not seem to fit with the other subjective terms.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern

Last edited by Upchurch; 11th December 2017 at 05:38 PM.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 07:50 PM   #62
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,964
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I’ve long been taught on this board that critical thinking is the methodology while skepticism is the guiding principle. Moreover, skepticism is largely meaningless if it doesn’t start with self-skepticism.

When confronted with something counter to what you think is true, the first step shouldn’t be to doubt the new idea, but to first identify and be skeptical of your own assumptions around the idea you currently possess. Why do you think that? Because you know or because you have made an assumption, that may or may not be true? Check your own sources, get your own house in order, then check whether the new idea is or could be true.

This board taught me that the hard way.
Absolutely to all of that, especially the bolded bit.

Self-skepticism is the purest form of skepticism (for me), and none of us are perfect yet, or ever will be. But we can always aim at self-improvement in these matters.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 08:06 PM   #63
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,964
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Okay... but do you realize that you're doing exactly what the articles in the OP call out? You're assigning all of the flaws, all of the bias, all of the poor logic to "the other side" and pretty much assuming that your side doesn't engage in the same behavior.
No, we're actually not, I really don't think.

I'm a Green (in a full-on-red state, so my POTUS votes are completely meaningless even in terms of "spoilering") despised almost equally by Democrats and conservatives alike. But I've suffered much, much worse "verbal abuse" and what felt like was "bullying" by Democrats.

Sometimes I've wanted to reach through the screen and virtually choke people I think of as the "alt-center".

And yet...

The modern Republican party is just peculiar in the whole of the developed world when it comes to vehement superstition, anti-science, voodoo economics, etc. The Tories in the UK might come in second, but I'm not sure they're a close second.

I grew up YEC (and conservative, btw), but the day eventually came when I realized it's just not true, can't be true, makes no sense, and is obviously made-up mythology. And modern conservative theories on "how the world works" are STRIKINGLY wrong like that.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 08:36 PM   #64
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,975
I'm a Democrat because this party since FDR has mostly, but not always looked out for working people, the poor, seniors and people of different ethnicities. I'm not religious but I believe we need to look out for each other. The Dems hav stood for and implemented policies for protecting the environment and to improve working conditions. In comparison, the GOP has for example fought for Right to Work legislation that threaten workers ability to negotiate, They have always opposed minimum wage laws and opposed any legislation that puts consumer and workers first.

I actually agree somewhat with Trump on immigration and the issue with Islam. But how he has gone about both is despicable as well as not practicable.

I see the GOP and Democrats protecting a broken health care system. I look at countries with universal health care spending much much less and everybody is covered. But universally the GOP is uninterested in fixing the problem.

Do I have a bias toward more Liberal policies? Absolutely, but I'm only interested in a country that works for as many as possible.

What has the President and the GOP fought for? Taking away healthcare for the poor and middle class. Tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations. Implemented and attempts to implement policies that eliminate protections for minorities and homosexuals. Radically change the Internet in a way that places the profits for Communications corporations above everyone else. By destroying Net Neutrality the communications companies can and will charge content providers as well as users for bandwidth. This will allow them to be able to throttle popular or new interesting applications while allowing their cash cows priority.

Am I biased? I guess you could say I have a policy bias against what the GOP stands for.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 11th December 2017 at 08:37 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2017, 06:24 AM   #65
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,683
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy
Could be I'm just biased, but whenever I've seen this issue raised in a political setting it's invariably boiled down to a tu quoque. "Everyone's biased anyway so I should be free to wallow in my own without criticism" is the unstated but ever-present implication.
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Gee, thanks for that not-at-all condescending and dismissive interpretation of a thread.
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Okay... but do you realize that you're doing exactly what the articles in the OP call out? You're assigning all of the flaws, all of the bias, all of the poor logic to "the other side" and pretty much assuming that your side doesn't engage in the same behavior. The topics are different, and in many cases the magnitude is different...

But it also has a lot less to do with the topic at hand than the way in which it is addressed. The "other side" is dumb, they're illogical, they're rejecting reality, they're evil, they're bad, they're immoral.

It all boils down to the same story: they're bad and we're good.
Yeah, I'm sticking by that interpretation for now.

If you'd like to change my mind: rather than accusing the rest of us of being biased, how have the articles in your OP revealed your bias, and how are you trying to correct it?
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2017, 07:42 AM   #66
carlvs
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago - Edgewater
Posts: 329
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
<snip>
The NRA is setup as the perfect American version of the SA (who chiefly were responsible for the spontaneous abduction and punishment) and we've seen that conservatives seem more concerned with "punishing" liberals than with any cohesive policy in the same way the KL was chiefly about retribution at first.

Put it all together and we have a recipe to repeat the entire damned thing.
The only thing is that if the NRA (or any like-minded group) tried to do what you are saying, they most likely will discover the true meaning of the second part of the old saying "Live by the sword ... "

Last edited by carlvs; 12th December 2017 at 07:44 AM. Reason: Removed html code
carlvs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2017, 09:41 AM   #67
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,042
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
If you'd like to change my mind: rather than accusing the rest of us of being biased, how have the articles in your OP revealed your bias, and how are you trying to correct it?
I think the subtle point being missed here is that Cracked article, which is really quite good, is meant for self-evaluation and improvement. It is not meant as a club for bashing others.

Further, the whole point is that these traps can be avoided. Criticisms of a particular viewpoint does not automatically mean that the criticizer is making one of these fallacies. It all depends one the foundation on which the criticizer is making the criticism. It could be irrational bias, but it could be completely legitimate, too. In critical thinking, how a conclusion is reached is just as important as the conclusion itself.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2017, 06:09 PM   #68
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,137
Originally Posted by carlvs View Post
The only thing is that if the NRA (or any like-minded group) tried to do what you are saying, they most likely will discover the true meaning of the second part of the old saying "Live by the sword ... "
Of course the NRA thinks they have ALL THE GUNS. I'm hoping to be among those that prove them us "Libcucks" will fight back.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2017, 01:26 PM   #69
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I think you've missed both the point of both the first article and the responses of many of the posters in this thread in relation to bias.

For example, how do you know what I'm thinking? What thought processes did I go through to reach the positions I have stated in this thread?
I don't know what you're thinking, nor do I know what your thought process is. But I can observe that in the post I'm responding to (and the one prior to it), you're viewing the political schism as being the fault of one side only. You're attributing the schism to Trump and people who support him. And you're claiming that the schism is due to a rejection of reality. You're not recognizing that the schism itself includes significantly more than just one thing, or one person. And you appear to be ignoring that there's another side to the issue.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Does objective reality have a role to play in determining what is bias and what is not, or is any position biased regardless of objective supporting evidence?

Except for this, I did not use any of those terms. Again, do you believe there an objective reality? If so, do you believe it has any role to play in a discussion of bias? What does a lack of bias mean, in your opinion?

ETA Side note: I note that this is the first time you've included "rejecting reality" as an example of saying "The other side is dumb". In fact, a focus on objective reality is at the very center of critical thinking. It is curious that you added them to your list when it does not seem to fit with the other subjective terms.
Objective reality has a role to play in determining fact. Bias has a role to play in what we accept as objective reality. Objective reality is that gravity works. Bias is that gravity works because God made it that way. You and I don't believe that God made gravity work, we see it as natural phenomenon of a moderately stable universe. We see it that way, because we are biased to view scientific hypothesis as more valid than religious conjecture. There's no way around me even explaining it without my own bias and belief being embedded in it.

When it comes to politics, its even more extreme. Although there is a lot of information out there, not all information is fact. And not all hypotheses or speculations are well supported. And not all conclusions are reached objectively. We filter information through our own beliefs. And we all tend to view the "other side" as being more simplistic than us, less informed than us, less intelligent than us, etc... How else could they possibly come to their opposing view than by ignorance or malevolence?

Why did Trump win? Is it because there are so many emboldened bigots in the US? Is it because people who voted for Trump are ignorant and uninformed? Is it because so many people were conned? Is there any explanation that you (or most others in this forum) would accept as valid that does NOT in some way involve denigrating the morality or the intelligence of those who voted for him?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2017, 01:59 PM   #70
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,042
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I don't know what you're thinking, nor do I know what your thought process is. But I can observe that in the post I'm responding to (and the one prior to it), you're viewing the political schism as being the fault of one side only. You're attributing the schism to Trump and people who support him. And you're claiming that the schism is due to a rejection of reality. You're not recognizing that the schism itself includes significantly more than just one thing, or one person. And you appear to be ignoring that there's another side to the issue.
Not all of that is accurate, but let's roll with it for the sake of argument. Unless you can read minds or have had extensive interviews with me, you don't know what process I went through to reach my conclusions and you don't know that I engaged in the logical fallacies outlined in the Cracked article to do so. Correct?


Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Objective reality has a role to play in determining fact. Bias has a role to play in what we accept as objective reality. Objective reality is that gravity works. Bias is that gravity works because God made it that way.
What you are describing is still not objective reality. Objective reality is that gravity works because mass increases the curvature of the local spacetime manifold. Saying that it's because God is pushing masses together is still a rejection of objective reality.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
We see it that way, because we are biased to view scientific hypothesis as more valid than religious conjecture.
That is a very odd use of the word "bias", unless you are using it ironically. Here's Google's defintion:
Quote:
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
It's that last bit I take issue with. Accepting objective reality is not remotely unfair.

Now, if you are saying that any position whatsoever represents "bias", then the concept of bias is meaningless and we need some other term to describe the phenomenon.


Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
When it comes to politics, its even more extreme. Although there is a lot of information out there, not all information is fact.
I was very specific about the scope of my argument. There is no need to repeat that aspect back to me.
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
That being said, not every issue has an objective right or wrong, but is merely a difference of opinions or preferences. Gay marriage, for example. One can certainly argue that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon and exists as an objective fact, but marriage is a human social construct. It has no independent objective existence. Who can participate in it is a matter of subjective preferences and principles.
Part of my point is that not every position, political or otherwise, is a product of bias and not all positions are equal. To say otherwise is to buy in to the line of thinking that comes up with ideas like the old canard that "atheism is just another religion".


FWIW, the other part of my point is that the fallacies presented in the Cracked article can both (1) be overcome and (2) are self-assessed. One cannot determine that someone has fallen victim to those fallacies simply on the basis that they say one side is better than another. They have insufficient data to make that judgement, as you do with me.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2017, 02:37 PM   #71
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Not all of that is accurate, but let's roll with it for the sake of argument. Unless you can read minds or have had extensive interviews with me, you don't know what process I went through to reach my conclusions and you don't know that I engaged in the logical fallacies outlined in the Cracked article to do so. Correct?
Give me your perspective on why the "other side" isn't solely at fault, and I'll rescind my observation.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
What you are describing is still not objective reality. Objective reality is that gravity works because mass increases the curvature of the local spacetime manifold. Saying that it's because God is pushing masses together is still a rejection of objective reality.
Technically, that's not a definitive reason. It's a theory that fits observation, but since we can't actually observe the local spacetime manifold, it isn't actually objective reality. It's a highly plausible explanation, and it conforms to both observation and testing.

I'll reiterate: Objective reality is that gravity works. The reason that gravity works isn't objective reality. And a person who believes in God could just as easily say that gravity works because mass increases the curvature of the local spacetime manifold because that's how God designed it.

Objective reality is the WHAT. Subjective interpretation is the WHY.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
That is a very odd use of the word "bias", unless you are using it ironically. Here's Google's defintion:

It's that last bit I take issue with. Accepting objective reality is not remotely unfair.
Oooh! Definition wars, yay! My favorite! Try this one on for size:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bias
Quote:
bias
noun
1.
a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Now, if you are saying that any position whatsoever represents "bias", then the concept of bias is meaningless and we need some other term to describe the phenomenon.
Every position is filtered through bias. That doesn't make it meaningless.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Part of my point is that not every position, political or otherwise, is a product of bias and not all positions are equal. To say otherwise is to buy in to the line of thinking that comes up with ideas like the old canard that "atheism is just another religion".

FWIW, the other part of my point is that the fallacies presented in the Cracked article can both (1) be overcome and (2) are self-assessed. One cannot determine that someone has fallen victim to those fallacies simply on the basis that they say one side is better than another. They have insufficient data to make that judgement, as you do with me.
Fair points. But looking back at over a year of casting blame, insisting that all republicans are bigots, arguing that conservatives are dumb, Trump voters are uninformed and ignorant, deplorable, and hateful, arguing that the president is a Nazi, and asking whether or not we'll ever be able to find it in ourselves to forgive those who voted for him... I'm fairly comfortable saying there's a huge (yuge!) amount of bias on this forum.

Maybe not you specifically... but are you comfortable arguing that it's not a massive underlying problem around here?

ETA: also, FWIW, I end up mixing you up with uke2se. I have no reason for this except your screen names both start with "u". No other reason, and it's a completely ridiculous conflation. But I do apologize if I inadvertently ascribe positions to you that don't belong to you. If I had a good explanation for why my brain is determined to mix you up, I'd take steps to do something about it. I'll just try really hard to be aware that my brain is sometimes subject to dumb.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 14th December 2017 at 02:39 PM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2017, 07:24 PM   #72
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,042
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Give me your perspective on why the "other side" isn't solely at fault, and I'll rescind my observation.
Ignoring that it wouldn't really address your claim, if you can't support your argument without asking someone to "prove me wrong", you don't have a very good argument.

Ask yourself: Is your claim based on actual knowledge or assumption?

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Technically, that's not a definitive reason. It's a theory that fits observation, but since we can't actually observe the local spacetime manifold, it isn't actually objective reality. It's a highly plausible explanation, and it conforms to both observation and testing.
Were dinosaurs objective reality?


Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Oooh! Definition wars, yay! My favorite! Try this one on for size:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bias
Quote:
bias
noun
1.
a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned
Are positions based on objective evidence preconceived or unreasoned? This isn't substantively different from the definition I gave and only supports my point.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Every position is filtered through bias. That doesn't make it meaningless.
Not every position is filtered through bias. Bias can be corrected and controlled for. That was part of most of the Cracked article. Bias is not a great equalizer between valid and invalid arguments.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
but are you comfortable arguing that it's not a massive underlying problem around here?
I haven't argued anything of the kind and I'm not going to. Not because I think it is or isn't the case, but because I don't really have the information to judge.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2017, 07:42 PM   #73
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,593
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat, numbers added View Post
Why did Trump win? (1) Is it because there are so many emboldened bigots in the US? (2) Is it because people who voted for Trump are ignorant and uninformed? (3) Is it because so many people were conned? (4) Is there any explanation that you (or most others in this forum) would accept as valid that does NOT in some way involve denigrating the morality or the intelligence of those who voted for him?
(1) yes (2) yes (3) yes (4) yes!
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2017, 07:49 PM   #74
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,877
Speaking of bizarro political bias, I just channel surfed past Hannity whose guest was Newt Gingrich.

They both agreed, Clinton was going down, the crooked FBI was going down and when that happened then fake news would get their comeuppance.

It's a stunning imaginary world they must live in.


Meanwhile on CNN, Anderson Cooper is reporting on how using the 'fake news' accusation to nullify politically inconvenient information is a concern to much of Europe and elsewhere.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 14th December 2017 at 07:54 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2017, 08:05 PM   #75
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,286
So someone like justice Kennedy....who splits the aisle..

Unbiased or idiosyncratic biased?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2017, 08:16 PM   #76
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,252
I thought I’d go through the Cracked article in the OP and try to see how each of the five points applied to me.

We're Not Programmed to Seek "Truth," We're Programmed to "Win"

Sort of. I’m sure this kicks in to some degree once I’ve taken a firm stance on something. Before that, I’m usually in a sort of “student mode” and doing a lot more asking questions than making arguments. After I actually start feeling confident enough to argue a position, I’ll rarely make a major change in it.

Our Brains Don't Understand Probability

I know that I don’t have a strong foundation in statistics so I tend to outsource that sort of thing. The article uses examples of people irrationally afraid of physical danger and I don’t really tend to worry about being injured or killed by murderers or terrorists. I was living in NYC during 9/11 and - though I was deeply upset by the attacks - I was never particularly worried about my personal physical safety.

We Think Everyone's Out to Get Us

As long as I can remember I’ve been repeatedly told by parents, teachers, coworkers and friends that I’m too trusting. I think I get a pass on this one.

We're Hard-Wired to Have a Double Standard

Not too much. I tend to be very unsympathetic toward people whose personal defects cause them to hurt other people (physically or emotionally). But I also really beat myself up when I hurt someone else even when it’s unintentional.

Facts Don't Change Our Minds

I’m sure this applies to me sometimes, though I doubt I’d be able to spot it when it happens. I can think of a number of occasions when I have changed my mind in response to new facts, so I know it doesn’t always apply. No idea how frequent it might be.
Civet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.