Bias equals wrong

Post Reply New Topic

If a person is biased about something and says something in favor of it, then this person's statement is automatically wrong.

There are 3 different things:
- The precise intention when something is said
- The background opinion of the person who says it
- The validity of what is said

If you say the person who does not agree your opinion, is never right, it means you value more someone's negative background opinion towards the idea, over the intention and even the validity of what is said.

The validity of what is said should come first (the one thing you are sure is true should have more value over the two other things that might be true or false). Bad idea otherwise in any case.

So if a person says something that you consider true or in favor of something you consider differently from him. He is right according to your own standards, period.
He might have a bad intention by saying this, but you can't know for sure, it's completely different, he is still right.

[quote="iamnotaparakeet"]If a person is biased about something and says something in favor of it, then this person's statement is automatically wrong.[/quote

The factual content of what someone asserts is the deciding factor. If someone asserts something without factual content then what he asserts can be dismissed as nonsense. It is not even wrong.

ruveyn

A reasonable apprehension of bias is sufficient to compromise the objectivity of the speaker.

If the speaker is a decision maker, then the reasonable apprehension of bias, alone, is sufficient to require the decision maker to withdraw in favour of another.

But if the speaker is merely an advocate, then bias may simply be an evaluation criterion that the listener may use to just the reliability of the statement.

Bias can also be the result of reaching a conclusion based on facts, so it is really hard to say. If a place has a history of creating bogus sex scandals then quite frankly my bias is going to be that they have no credibility, which is perfectly reasonable.

In that case, everyone is wrong.

Bias is, by definition, a predisposition in favour of a party. You cannot, within the accurate meaning of the word, have a bias against something.

The case you cite is nearer to prejudice, which is the action of reaching a conclusion before examining the evidence in the instant case (i.e. to pre-judge). Applying a history of previous bogus sex scandals to an assessment of credibility creates the risk of reaching a decision without properly hearing evidence in a subsequent matter.

What about people with racial biases. They are usually biased against members of some race or group.

ruveyn

No, that is an improper use of the word. Their bias in favour of (presumably) their own race causes them to prejudice themselves in matters concern the race(s) that they disfavour.

When in doubt, go back to the dictionary.

What if I said "Men make better firefighters and lumberjacks because they are bigger and stronger"

Gasp. Does that mean I am "biased" against women?

What if I said I would rather hire a 25 year old lumberjack instead of a 65 year old lumberjack?
Does that make me "ageist"?

I think the thread starter is biased against biased people.

No. It means theyre biased.
It means that they have diminished credibility.
They still might be right.

If a spokesman for big tobacco says one thing about the health risks of cigarettes.
And a scientist not on the tobacco industry payroll says something else.
And if you dont have the time and expertise to anylize the content of what either is saying then you have to make a snap judgement about who to believe.

No. It makes you biased towards men.

hilarious.

I think the OP meant to put a question mark at the end of his statement.
He was ASKING if Bias=wrongness not asserting that to be so.
So its not clear whether hes "biased against biased people" or whether hes complaining about being accused of being biased himself.

But we'd have ask him. i could be wrong.

But my response to him would be the same either way.
Bias is bias, not wrongness.
A stopped watch is rigtht twice a day and Fox news is right sometime too.
But you have to beware of both.

I purposely left it a statement in order to facilitate thinking since almost everyone here is contrary in nature.